Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
in 2011 witii funding from 
Tine Library of Congress 



http://www.arcliive.org/details/liearingsatwasliinOOamer 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES 
CONFERENCE 



HEARINGS 

AT 

WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY 21-25 

BOSTON, MASS., JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1 

GLOUCESTER, MASS., FEBRUARY 2 

ST. JOHN, N. B., FEBRUARY 5-6 



1918 



PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE 

AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIXTY-FIFTH 

CONGRESS, SECOND CONGRESS. 



#. 

Cf 



I 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1918 



(^H AIRMAN OF CONFEREXCE. 
Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. 

CANADIAN DELEGATION. 

Hon. JOHN DOUGLAS HAZBN, Chief Justice of New Brunswick. 

Mr. GEORGE J. DESBARATS, Deputy Minister of the Naval Service. 

Mr. WILLIAM A. FOUND, Superintendent of Fisheries. 

a:\iehic'an delegation. 

Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. 

Hon. EDWIN F. SWEET, Assistant Secretary of Commerce. 

Dr. H. M. SMITH, Commissioner of Fisheries. 

:Mr. ARNOLD ROBERTSON, First Secretary of the British Embassy, Secretary of Canadian 

Delegation. 
Mr. MAITLAND DWIGHT, of the Department of State, Secretary of the American 

Delegation. 

Mr. EDWARD T. QUIGLEY, Assistant Solicitor Department of Commerce. Assistant 

Secretary and Legal Adviser of the American Delegation. 



G0]\[]M1TTEE ON THE MERCHANT MAKINE AND FISHERIES. 
Hox\SE OF Represent ATiVEs. 

JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 
RUFUS HARDY. Texas. WILLIAM C. WRIGHT. Georgia. 

EDWARD W. SAUNDERS. Virginia. WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 

PETER J. DOOLING. New York. GEORGE W. EDMONDS. Pennsylvania. 

LADISLAS LAZARO. Louisiana. LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. 

WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. FREDERICK W. ROWE. New York. 

JESSE D. PRICE. Maryland. GEORGE M. BOWERS, West Virginia. 

DAVID II. KINCHELOE. Kentucky. FRANK D. SCOTT, Michigan. 

WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD. Alabama. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.. Maine. 

EARL H. BESHLIN, Pennsylvania. SHERMAN E. BURROUGHS, New Hampshire. 

BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREYS. Mississippi. FREDERICK R. LEHLBACH, New Jersey. 
William B. Yancet^ Clerk. 



De Of D. 

APR 24 f 






CONTENTS. 



Letter of transmittal 5 

Introduction 7 

Hearings at Washington, D. C: 

Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation 11, 42, 46 

Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General, Steamboat-Inspection 

Service 27 

Mr. Henry M. Loomis, United States Food Administration 43 

Hon. JohnD. Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick, Canadian delegation . 51 
Hon. J. W. Alexander, chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, House of Representatives 53 

Hearings at Boston, Mass.: 

Opening statement by Hon. William C. Redfield 60 

Statement by Chief Justice Hazen 63, 103 

Mr. William J. O'Brien, president Boston Fish Market Corporation 66 

Mr. H. C. Wilbur, commissioner of fisheries of State of Maine 67, 92 

Capt. M. H. Nickerson, Boston Lobster Co 70, 92, 104 

Mr. A. L. Parker, president of Boston Fish Pier Co 70, 175 

Mr. William H. Brown, secretary of Fishermen's ITnion 71, 124 

Mr. John Burns, jr . , Bay State Fishing Co 76, 155 

Mr. Henry Otte, manager of marine department of Bay State Fishing Co. 80, 181 

Mr. Arthiu- L. Millett, fish commissioner of Massachusetts 85 

Mr. Frederick L. Davis, president Gloucester Board of Trade 88, 112, 121 

Capt.. Carl C. Young, of Gloucester 88,119 

Mr. William F. Doyle, of East Boston 93 

Mr. Frank S. Willard, of Portland 94 

Mr. Joseph A. Rich, Bay State Fishing Co 96, 105 

Mr. O. M. Arnold, New England Fish Co 107 

Mr. R. L. Patrick of the Vermont Fish and Game League 113 

Mr. Lius Leavens, Vermont Fish and Game Commissioner 114 

Mr. D. A. Loomis, Lake Shore Transportation Co 114 

Mr. J. W. Titcomb, fish culturist of State of New York 115 

Mr. Sylvester M. Whalen, secretary Boston Fishing Masters' Association. 123, 125 

Mr. Alfred L. Young, J. A. Young & Co 128 

Mr. John G. Cox, Consolidated Lobster Co 141 

Mr. C. F. Wonson, Gloucester Salt Fish Co 149 

Mr. George C. Fitzpatrick, Boston 157 

Mr. Avery L. Powell, Boston Lobster Co 158 

Mr. F. J. O'Hare, fish merchant 158 

Congi'essman Willfred W . Luf kin, of Essex 160 

Mr. W. Munroe Hill, Shattuck & Jones Co 161 . 

Mr. Gardner Poole, president Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage Co 164 

Mr. Irving M. Atwood, Consolidated Weir Co 171 

Mr. A. L. Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co 175 

Ml-. W. A. Reed, secretary Gloucester Board of Trade 175, 181 

Mr. Henry Otte, manager Bay State Fish Co 181 

Ml-. John M. Fulham, Boston Fish Market Corporation 177 

Mr. George E. Willey, president Boston Fish Market Corporation 182, 187 

Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen 188 

Closing statement by Hon. William C. Redfield 188 

3 



4 CONTENTS. 

Hearing at Ciloucester: Page. 

Opening statement by lion. William V. Redfield 192 

Statement by Chief Justice Hazen 19 + 

Mr. Frederit'k L. Da^is, president Gloucester Board of Trade 19S, 216, 277 

Congressman Willfred W. Lufkin, of Essex 198, 231 

Mr. J. Manuel IMarshall, owner of vessels sailing from Gloucester 199, 210 

Capt. Carl C. Young 203, 269 

Mr. Thomas A. Carroll, general manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co 203 

Capt. George H. Peeples 212 

Canadian counties 215 

Capt. Benjamin A. Smith, vessel manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. 218, 253, 277 

Ckpt. Elroy Prior 225 

Mr. Alexander J. Chisholm, fish producer ._ 228 

Capt. Fred Thompson , 231 

Capt. Lemuel E. Spinnev, captain and Aessel owner 238 

j\Ir. Frank E. DaA-is. president Frank E. Da^is Fish Co 241 

Capt. Peter Cirant 243 

Capt. John Matheson 245 

Mr. Orlando Merchant, William H . Jordan Co 255 

Mr. Charles V. Wonson. Gloucester Salt Fish Co 256 

Capt. Thomas M. Nickerson, of Bucksport, ^le 260 

^fr. George J. Tarr. George J. Tarr Co., dealers in oils 265 

l\[r. HenrvE. Piukham,lienry E. Piukham Co.. salt fish 267 

My. a. L." Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co 268 

Mr. Joseph McPhee 269 

Facts about the " Seal " in Halifax harbor 273 

Mr. E. Archer Bradley, vessel owner and distributor of fish 274, 277 

Information about sale of Gloucester vessels 276 

Mr. John A . Johuson, marine insurance 280 

Signing of the Halifax agreement 280 

Obtaining coal in Canadian ports 282 

Closing statement by Hon. William (.', Redfield 282 

Closing statement by Cliief Justice Hazen 284 

Hearings at St. John, New Brunswick: 

Opening statement bv Chief .1 ustice John D . Hazen 288 

Statement by Hon . William C . Redfield 292 

M. M. Gardner, W. C. Smith A Co., Luuenberg, owners of fishing fleet 293 

Benjamin A . Smith, of Gloucester. Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co 305 

A. H. Brittain. managing director of the Maritime Fish Corporation (Ltd.), 

general ofiices. Montreal; branches at Canso and Digby. Xova Scotia 306 

S. Y. \Mlson. manager Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.^i, Halifax 311 

Havelock Wilson. Canadian inspector cured fish 321 

Harry Belyea. St. John, fisherman 323 

Robert E . Wilson . St. J ohn . fisherman 325 

Walter Leonard, St. John, president of Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.~) 326 

John F. Calder. Canipo Bello. inspector of fisheries 330 

John Jackson. South Wharf, cured fish dealer, St. John 336 

RE. Armstrong, secretary, St. John 33S 

H. B. Short, manager Maritime Fish Corporation at Digby, Xova Scotia. . . 340 

Thomas Ferguson, steamship inspector, board of the Dominion of Canada. 355 

Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen 303 

Closing statement bv Hon. William C. Redtield 304 

Exliibits . r ". 365-382 

Index 383-399 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



March 22, 1918. 

My Dear Coxgress^iax : I have the honor to transmit herewith, 
for the information of the Committee on Mercliant Marine and 
Fisheries, copies of the reported hearings of the xVmerican-Canadian 
Fisheries Conference held in Washington, Boston, Gloucester, and 
St. John. N. B. 

I am also inclosing an introductory statement briefly setting forth 
facts relative to the appointment of the commission by the United 
States and Canada, and the matters discussed at the preliminary 
meetings of the commission in the city of Washington, including 
various questions relative to the fisheries which the conference de- 
cided to consider. 

At the hearings in "Washington, Boston, Oloucester, and St. John, 
several subjects came with special prominence before the conference. 
Chief among these were the limitations now imposed upon American 
fishing A'essels in Canadian ports and the restrictions which American 
law placed upon Canadian vessels in our own ports. Of less general 
importance, but still having weight with the States of Vermont and 
[N'ew York, were certain existing conditions in Lake Champlain. 

The hearings developed the fact that a large increase in the pro- 
duction of fish for the food supply of this country was both necessary 
and practicable, and that wisdom would provide for removing, as 
far as might be possible, the difficulties that hampered the develop- 
ment of the largest possible production. Following the hearings 
mentioned above the Canadian authorities courteously took the ini- 
tiative in removing, by the following Order in Council of February 
18, 1918, the embarrassing conditions on Lake Champlain : 

Sectiini 15 of the special tislier.v regulatiuiis for the Province of Quebec 
adopted l)y Order in Council of the 12th of September, 1907, shall be, and the 
same is herel),v. amended by adding thereto the following subsection: 

" 5. Fishing by means of nets of any kind is prohibited in Missisquoi Bay 
and in the Canadian waters of Lake Cliamplain," 

Shortly thereafter, with the President's approval, the Department 
of Commerce issued, on February 20. 1918, to the collectors of cus- 
toms the following order : 

To jiromote the vigorous prosecution of the war and to make the utmost use 
jointly of all the resou.i'ces of the nations now cooperating, you will permit, dur- 
ing the war. Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting 
Avitli tiie United States to enter from an(l clear for the high seas and the fish- 
eries, disposing of their catch and taking on supplies, stores, etc., under super- 
vision, as in the case of merchant vessels entering and clearing for foreign 
])orts. except as to tonr.a.ve tax and other charges sjiecihcall.v imposed on entry 
from and clearance for foreign ports. (This order also miiilies to the (Ireat 
Tjakes and other hikes and waters on the Canadian boundary of the United 
States. See Exhibit AA. i>. 88P.. ) 

The etfect of this order was to permit Canadian fishing vessels and 
those of other nations acting with the United States in the war to 
proceed direct with their cargoes of fish from the fishing grounds to 
our ports and also direct on the outward trip from the ports to the 
fishing banks. This action was in due course made known to the 
Canadian authorities. 

On March 8 an order in council was issued by the Governor Gen- 
eral of Canada, consisting, in part, of the following report pre- 



b LETTER OF TEANSMITTAL. 

sented by the committee of the Privy Council and approved by the 
Governor General: 

The Miuistei- of the Xnval Service i-ecoimiiends. under the authority ot the 
war measures act. chapter 2, of the Statutes of 1914. that during the war 
United States tishini;- vessels, in addition to their treaty riiihts and privileges, 
shall he permitted to enter any port in Canada without the reipiirement of a 
license oi- tlie payment of fees not charged to Canadian tishiug vessels, for any 
of the following purposes: {a) The purchase of bait. ice. nets, lines, coal. oil. 
provisions, and all other supplies and oultiis used hy tisliing vessels, whether 
rhe same are of a like character to those named in tliis section or not: (h) re- 
pairing fishing implements: {<■) dressing and salting tlicir catches on hoard 
shi]): ((/) the shipping of crews: (c) the transsipment of their catches; (/) tlie 
sale thereof locally on payment of the duty. 

The minister further reconunends that the fees paid (m licenses already taken 
out for tlie present calendar year be remitted. 

These privileges are granted only for the period of the war by the 
above order in council, and apply to all Canadian coasts. 

A source of complaint on the part of the Canadian delegation had 
reference to the practice pursued by a number of American lobster- 
well smacks of catching lobsters off the coast of Nova Scotia just 
outside the three-mile limit during the closed season for lobster in 
the territorial Avaters of Canada. While the laws of Canada prevent 
Canadian fishermen from taking lobster during the closed season, 
American fishermen continued to catch them to the disadvantage 
and annoyance of the fishermen from the Maritime Provnices. The 
justice of the complaint was recognized by the American delegation, 
and also by witnesses engaged in the lobster industry vvho testified, 
at the hearings of the conference in Boston. As a result a bill ap- 
proved by the American delegation to the conference, having for its 
object the prohibition of this practice, was. at my request, intro- 
duced by you in Congress on February -lo, 1918. (See copy on p. 57.) 

The promptness Avith which action was taken in these matters is 
indicative of the earnest desire on the part of both countries to elimi- 
nate all sources of friction growing out of the fisheries. 

The conference, with both the American and the Canadian dele- 
gates in attendance, will hold a hearing in Seattle beginning April 
24, proceeding from there to Vancouver. Prince Rupert, Ketchikan, 
Alaska, and on their return holding sessions at Ottawa. At these 
hearings in Seattle and other places in the XortliAvest, matters con- 
cerning the protection of the salmon in and around Puget Sound 
and the Fraser River, and also the protection of the halibut — the 
center of this industry being Seattle, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and 
Ketchikan, on the Pacific — will be discussed. Furthermore, the mat- 
ter regarding the use of American and Canadian ports by the fishing 
vessels of both countries will also be taken up at these hearings, as 
will also questions relating to the whale industry and to the order in 
council of Canada, with reference to the purchase of bait and land- 
ing of fish by foreign vessels at ports of British Columbia— having 
a direct bearing on the subject of fishing vessels putting in at Prince 
Rupert, B. C. — together with other fishery matters that may come 
to the attention of the conference. 

Very truh^, yours. AVilt.iam C. Redfield, 

Sea^efary. 

Hon. J. W. Alexander, 

GhaiTman Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheHes^ 

Hou^e of Representatives^ Washington, D. G. 



INTRODUCTION. 



During the past five years several questions of an important charac- 
ter developed between the United States and Canada in connection 
with the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts which it 
soon became apparent must be given serious consideration. After 
considerable correspondence the Governments of the United States 
and Canada arranged to hold a joint conference " to reach, if possi- 
ble, a mutually satisfactory understanding as to the pending ques- 
tions concerning the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 
and to report the result of their deliberations to their Governments 
as a basis for the subsequent negotiations of a formal agreement 
between them." 

The Canadian Government appointed the following commission- 
ers to the conference: Hon. John Douglas Hazen, Chief Justice of 
New Brunswick; Mr. George J. Desbarats, C. M. G., C. E., Deputy 
Minister of the Naval Service ; and j\Ir. William A. Found, Superin- 
tendent of Fisheries. The Government of the Ignited States in turn 
appointed as commissioners Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of 
Commerce; Mr. Edwin F. Sweet, xVssistant Secretary" of Commerce; 
and Dr. Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner of Fisheries. Mr. Arnolcl 
Robertson, First Secretary of the British Embassy, was appointed 
secretary of the Canadian delegation; Mr. Maitland Dwight, of the 
Department of State, was appointed secretary of the American dele- 
gation ; and Mr. Edward T. Quiglev, Assistant Solicitor for the De- 
partment of Commerce, was appointed assistant secretary and legal 
advisor. 

The first session of the conference was held on January 16, 1918, 
at the Department of Commerce, and at the suggestion of Chief 
Justice Hazen, Secretary Redfield was elected chairman. The con- 
ference held sessions on January 17, 18, and 19, at which the follow- 
ing matters were generally discussed : 

i. Lobster fisheries in the North Atlantic. — The Canadian com- 
missioners pointed out that American lobster >\ell-smacks had 
adopted the practice of fishing just outside the territorial waters of 
Canada during the closed season for lobster fishing in that country. 
This not only caused irritation among the Canadian fishermen, but 
nullified the purpose of the closed season. The American delegates 
acknowledged the justice of the Canadian position, and Secretary 
Redfield requested Mr. Quigley to prepare a bill to be introduced in 
Congress to prevent the continuation of this practice. 

2. Conservation of salmon in and arownd Puget Sound and the 
Fraser River. — This matter was generally discussed and the com- 
missioners of both countries realized the necessity of taking steps to 
preserve the salmon supply. The following resolution was adopted : 

That a committee be formed to prepare a number of regnhitions for submis- 
sion to the conference for controlling fisheries in anrl atfecting the Fraser River 
and the waters contiguous thereto. 



8 IXTRODrCTION. 

Dr. Smith and jSIr. Found were selected to form the committee, and 
■were authorized to associate with tliem such others as they might 
deem desirabk\ 

3. Fishing indusfrii in (/lul around Prince Rupert and Ketchi- 
han. — The American delegates pointed out that the present regula- 
tions at Prince Eupert. under an order in council, placed an unfair 
burden upon the American fishing industry. The Canadians stated 
that this impression \Yas based on a misconception of facts. The 
matter was deferred for furtliei- consideration at future sessions of 
tlie conference. 

4. Equifalde rules gorerning the use of (Unu/dian and American 
■ports hy fishing ressels of hoth countries. — The delegates discussed 
at length the question of the Canadian GoA'ernment granting licenses 
to fishing vessels of the T~^nited States to enter its ports for further 
privileges than those granted by the treaty of 1818 (see Exhibit BB. 
p. 383)" without charging a fee for the issuance of such licenses, and 
also the question of the issuance of a license to fishing vessels irre- 
spective of how they might be propelled, and that the issuance of 
such licenses be provided for on a permanent basis and not be con- 
ditional on annual orders in council of the (xovernment of Canada. 
The Canadian delegates called the attention of the conference to 
the fact that under the present law in the United States Canadian 
vessels were forbidden to clear directly from American ports to 
the fishing grounds or to go into American ports from the fishing 
grounds. These important questions were left for more careful 
consideration by the conference. 

0. Protection of haJihat in the Pacific. — The delegates agreed that 
some steps should be taken to protect the halibut fishery on the 
Pacific Ocean and took up the consideration of a resolution to accom- 
plish this end. 

6. Pil-e-perch fisheries in Lal-e Cham plain. — The delegates agreed 
that some steps should be taken to prevent Canadians from net fish- 
ing in the Canadian portion of the lake. 

1. Sturgeon fisheries. — The delegates agreed that some action 
should be taken to preserve the sturgeon in both coastal and interior 
waters. 

8. [nternation(d protection of whales. — It was suggested that the 
conference should also consider the protection of whales on the high 
seas. This matter Avas held over for further consideration. 

At the session of January 19 the subject of bounties ]->aid by the 
(iovernment of Canada to their fishermen was discussed, and the 
Canadian commissioners submitted a memorandum on the subject 
which showed that the amount paid was practically insignificant. A 
copy of the memorandum is attached. (See Exhibit A. p. 367.) 

Preliminary to the hearings which the conference decided to hold 
in Xew England and the Canadian IVIaritime Provinces, a notice was 
sent to the fishing industries interested that the following subjects 
were before the ccmference and would be made. auKuig others, the 
subject of consideration : 

1. Thar the nnxlus vivmidi oo' ExhihiT ('('. n. :^S:>) be extended to all tishin;;- 
vessels, by whatever means they may be propelled ; that it be applied to the 
I\-u'lfir coast as well as to the Atlantic: and that the annual fee be reduced froni- 
.^l.riO per re.iiistered ton to the nominal snm of $1 per vessel: also, that the 



INTRODUCTION. » 

reue\v:il of the licenses from year to year he not conditional on an order in 
council hut form part of the arran.uement itself. 

2. That United States tishiuK vessels on hoth coasts he allowed to sell th.-i.r 
fish iu Canadian ports for the ("anndian markets, suhject to customs duty, as 
well as to sell in hond. 

3 That Canadian fishing vessels he allowed to purchase hait and all other 
supplies and outfits in United States ports or waters on equal terms with 
American fishing vessels. 

4. That Canadian fishing vessels he allowed to take their catches to L mted 
States ports and sell them" there. suh.iect to customs duties, if any. 

5. That fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other he given 
clearance for the fishing grounds, if so desired. 

6. That the United States prevent American lohster well smacks from fishing 
oi¥ the Canadian coasts during the close seasons for lohstei- fishing on such 
coasts. 

At the suggestion of Secretary Redfiekl the conference invited 
Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher, ranking member of the Senate Commit- 
tee on Fisheries ; Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, chairman of the House 
Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries ; Mr. Eugene T. / 
Chamberlain, Commissioner of the Bureau of Navigation; Mr. 
George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General of the Steamboat In- 
spection Service; and a representative of the United States Food 
Administration to be present at the subsequent sessions in Wash- 
ington to give the conference the benefit of their views on matters 
coming before it. The testimony of these gentlemen, together with 
the hearings at Boston, Gloucester, and St. Johns and tlie exhibits 
considered appears appended hereto. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 



HEARINGS AT WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AVashington, D. C, 
Monday morning, January '21, 1918. 
Mr. Eugene Tyler Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, De- 
partment of Connnerce, United States of America, appeared before 
the conference at the Department of Commerce. 

Secretary Kedfield, who was selected as chairman of the conference, 
presided. 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COMMISSIONER OF 

NAVIGATION. 

Secretary Eedfield. Mr. Chamberlain,' the Canadian connnission- 
ers have submitted, as you have heard, a suggestion Avhich involves 
a matter which I understand to come within the scope of the navi- 
gation laws, and which is in substance that " in consideration for 
certain other matters suggested by them Canadian vessels be per- 
mitted to leave our ports direct for the fishing banks, wherever they 
may be, and to enter direct from the fishing banks into our ports." 

Will you tell the conference in your own language what the law is 
on that subject, giving its history in brief compass; what changes, 
if necessary, would have to be made in the law to carry out the sug- 
gestion; how those changes would be effected, and, in short, your 
knowledge and opinion of the matter as proposed; and after you 
have made your statement, or possibly in the course of it, the Ca- 
nadian commissioners are invited to ask any questions on the sub- 
ject that may occur to them. State the facts in your own way. 

Mr. Chamberlaix. The law, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, is a 
simple and ancient one. It is embodied in section 4311, of which I 
have several copies. [Hands a copy to each member.] The law is 
as follows : 

R. S. 4311. Yes^sels of twenty tons uud upward, enrolled in pursuance of this 
title (R. S. 4311-4890) and having a license in force, or vessels of less than 
twenty tons which, although not enrolled, have a license in force, as I'equired 
by this title, and no others, shall be deemed vessels of the United States en- 
titled to the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries. 

That is section 4311 of the Eevised Statutes, which is part of the 
act of 1T93, and has been steadil}^ in operation. 

Enrolled vessels are vessels that are over 20 tons; any inider 20 
tons are licensed and not enrolled. The enrolled vessels also carry a 
license which entitles them to engage either in the coasting trade or 
fisheries. The vessels under 20 tons have not an enrollment, but 
merely a license or annual document. So the section is comprehen- 
sive; it takes in everything. That is a restriction of the coasting 
trade and the fisheries to vessels of the United States, and that is 
the basic law; that is, 3^ou may say, the entire law on the subject. 

11 



12 AMERICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 

It aims at rather more. This distinction between the coasting 
trade and the fisheries aims at ratlier more tlian the exclusion of for- 
eign vessels, because a vessel that is enrolled for the coasting trade — 
I should say licensed for the coasting trade — which engages in the 
fisheries is subject to forfeiture, or. vice versa, a vessel licensed for 
the fisheries Avhich engages in the coasting trade is subject to for- 
feiture. In other Avords, you have to live within your license. 

The statute is a part of the act of 1793, which really dates back to 
the first registry act of 1789. The policy of the time was, of course, 
in the first place, to develop the construction of ships in the United 
States, and. in the second place, to keep the trades absolutely dis- 
tinct. The reason for that, I take it, was that Jetferson and other 
men of those days were very keen on the de^'elopment of the fisheries. 
fJefferson, you may have noted, prepared quite a document on that 
subject Avhen he was Secretary of State. The fisheries Avere from — 
I can not recall the exact date, but from very early in the history of 
the country up to well within the Civil War. in receipt of bounties 
on the basis of the size of the ship. If any of the members of the 
conference are interested in that subject. I covered it in a report some 
years ago. but I did not bring it down with me. That was taken 
away in 1861. and as a substitute for the bounties, which had been 
paid up to that time, certain privileges — that of free, pure salt for 
curing the fish was the principal one — Avere granted. 

I am a little at a loss. Mr. Secretary, to know how to go on. be- 
cause, as I say, that is the basic laAv, and any other matter beyond 
that would be a matter of detail : but I do not knoAv in which direc- 
tion your minds are turning, and if you will give me the benefit of a 
question or two, I will answer them. 

Seci'etary Redfield. Proceed, Mr. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Chamberlain. The repeal or modification of that law is the 
only way to meet the proposition. The law, as you see, is an affirma- 
tion of a policy. Actual proceeding under this statute Avas brought 
to our attention of late years; I think it Avas in 1911 in the case of 
the Coquet^ the British steam trawler. I haA'e the papers here. 

It came into Xcav York and the captain announced that he Avished, 
for reasons that Avere given that Avere related at the time — I don't 
recall them noAv — to make several fishing voyages out of the port 
of XeAv York. This being a Canadian fishing vessel, he asked if he 
would be alloAved to do so. The collector said that unless he Avas 
instructed to the contrary he Avould not alloAv her to clear for the 
high seas, and Ave confirmed his position. That Avas in 1911. 

Seci-etary Redfield. ^Ir. Chamberlain, is there any penalty at- 
tached to this laAV? 

Mr. Chambeklaix. That matter came up at the time, and there is 
not. as a matter of fact, any penalty that is applicable. 

Secretary Redfield. Su])pose then that a Canadian vessel did sail 
from a port to fishing banks and returned Avith a cargo of fish. Avhat 
Avould happen I 

]Mr. Chambeulaix. There are two aspects of that. In the first 
place, there is the departure of the vessel, practically in defiance of 
the order of the collector, that she should not depart on that par- 
ticular voyage. It is quite proper for the collector to enlist the co- 
operation 'of a reA-enue cutter, a coast-guard ship, as they now call 
tl^em — to send one of those armed boats out and bring the ship back. 
That used to be not infrequently done a great many years ago. but 



AMERICAISJ^-CANADIAN' FISHERIES CONEEEEXCE. 13 

of course of late years there has been nothing of that kind at- 
tempted : probably there has been no occasion for it. 

But assuming that the vessel went in defiance of the collector's 
orders, there is no particular penalty. There is a fine for departing 
without clearance, but that is merely $500. It doesn't amount to 
very much, and in the case of the return of the vessel I don't know 
just what could be done. I don't know of anything. There is the 
prohibition of the law. The only way to meet the situation would be 
by invoking the forces of the Government, rather than any specific 
statute. 

There is an alien-tonnage tax that years ago somebody attempted 
to apply, not to a case of just this kind but to one in some respects 
like it; but Mr. Brewster, I think it was, the Attorney General at 
that time, held that it had no application to this section; so it is 
hardly worth my while referring to it. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, if I understand you correctly, the sub- 
stance of the law as it stands is a declaration of policy? 
Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there any power in any department of the 
Government to instruct the collector to allow such vessels either to 
clear or to depart without clearance? Also to permit her to enter 
without formal entry? 

Mr. Chamberlain." The general power over entry and clearance is 
vested, as you know, in this department. 

Secretary Redfield. Does it extend to cases of that character? 
Mr. Chamberlain. It was exercised in that instance. 
Secretary REDFiELD.AVhich instance do you refer to? 
Mr. Chamberlain. The case of the Coquet; exercised, I might 
say, after some reflection as to whether it was there or whether it 
wasn't. But it was assumed that the policy clearly carries with it 
the duty of somebody to give utterance to that policy in a specific 
case which may arise. ancTthis specific case was right there, and it 
was certainly the duty of the head of this department, rather than of 
another department. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Was that in NeAv York? 
Mr. Chamberlain. Well, the port isn't important; it would come 
into an American port with a load of fish direct from the fishing 
grounds. 

Mr. Found. The Coquet was a British vessel. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I understand that : it came to an American 
port with a load of fish, and then it cleared right directly to the 
fishing ground? 

Mr. Chamberlain. She wished to clear. 

Chief Justice Hazen. She wished to clear, and did you allow her to? 
Mr. Chamberlain. She did not, but she cleared subsequently for a 
Canadian port, which was quite proper. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then you wouldn't allow her to clear for 
a fishing ground? 

Mr. Chamberlain. No. sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. In what way did the head of this department 
exercise control? 

Mr. Chamberlain. The collector said that he would refuse unless 
instructed to the contrary, and mv recollection is — there is no need 



14 AMERIOAN^-CAIs^ADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEBENCE. 

of iwy trut^ting to my recollection on that. With your permission, 
■Mr. Secretaryri Avill read this letter, ^vhich seems to be of September 
1. 1911. 

(Communieation of Sept. 1, 1911. from Charles Earl. Acting Sec- 
retary, to collector of customs. Xew York City, read by Mr. Cham- 
berhiin. See Exhibit B. page iMu.) 

Mr. C'iia:hbki{l.\tn. That in spite of its absurdity. 

Secretary l\EmiEi.n. In the event of his having left without clear- 
ance a tine* of $50(1 would be automatically imposed. 

Mr. Cir.vTkrnEULAiN. If you ever got him again. 

Secretary Reofielu. Precisely. 

Mr. Cii.v:MBEin.AiN. Please bear in mind that it is permissible, you 
knoAV. to send an armed vessel after a vessel that leaves without 
clearance. T doubt whether it would have been done in this case. 

Secretary Ef.dfiei.o. It is also a fact, is it not. that the Secretary 
of Conuncrce was authorized to mitigate or to cancel lines of that 
character ^ 

Mr. CuA^inEin^viN. t)h, yes. 

Secretary REnviELn. It is under that phase of the law. is it not. 
that the vessels are acting in coastwise trade upon the Lakes, and that 
we have recently instructed certain vessels belonging to His ^Majesty 
the King of threat Britain to be permitted to leave and enter the 
pcu't i>f New York without clearing and without entry? 

Mr. CuAMUEUi.AiN. Yes. sir. So far as the coasting hnv is con- 
cerned, a special hiw was passed for alloAving penults in that. 

Mr. Foi ND. May 1 ask if you are familiar with the ruling which 
was given by the collector of customs possibly tAvo years after that? 
I am not sure as to the time, but quite subsequently to that. It 
was the ruling in which he refused \o allow a vessel to come in from 
the high seas with the tish. 

^Ir. CiiAMUEiu.AiN. 1 think 1 have that here. Of course the two 
would go together, at any rate. 

^Ir. FoiNO. The latter case went a bit further. You see. in his 
case there was a duty on the iish in the United States. He came in. 
and there Avas no objection to his selling the tish on paying the duties, 
but after the taritf had been removed, then the other question arose, 
and the collector of customs at Boston said that he Avouldn't be alloAved 
to go there Avith his tish at all. direct from the tishing ground. 

^Ir. Saveet. Had he started from an American port '. 

Mr. Foi"ND. The (ot/tuf Avas a British steam traAvler that Avas 
tishing under contract for so much per pound for all the iish that 
Avere delivered to a certain Canadian tirm. She Avent out on a tish- 
ing trip during the Avinter and couldn't get back to Canso from 
Avhich port she Avas tishing on account of ice. She consequently Avent 
to XcAv York Avith her catch and couldn't get back. She got a good 
price and Avanted to come back again. That Avas rlie Avhole thing- 
Hut there was no question raised then as to her going there. The only 
question then was to make her lose the rime to go back to a Canadian 
port from there before proceeding to the tishing grounds : but. subse- 
t^uently. Avhen the taritf Avas revised and free tish came on, the col- 
lector of customs at Boston intimated that no Canadian tishing vessel 
t)r foreign vessel Avould be alloAved to go into Boston from the tish- 
iuiT iiTounds Avith her tish. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 15 

Mr. Sweet. Without any regard to the port from which she had 
started? 

Mr. FouxD. Yes. 

Mr. Chamberlain. That was in 1914, I think. 

Secretary Eedfield. Will you put the matter in the record, please ? 

(Letters of the collector of customs, dated June 4, 1914, and of 
Commissioner Chamberlain, dated June 5, 1914, read. See Exhibits 
C and D, p. 368.) 

Mr. Chamberlain. I don't know whether that is the case you have 
in mind. 

Mr. Found. That covers it entirely. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It would be correct, sizing up the situation 
as the law stands at the present time, that a Canadian vessel that has 
sailed from a Canadian port and caught a cargo of fish can not take 
that fish directly into a port in the United States and sell it there, 
and that a Canadian vessel that is in a United States port having 
sold its cargo of fish can not get clearance for the high seas. 

Mr. Chamberlain. That is undoubtedly the policy, and while 
there might be some difficulties, as I have indicated in the physical 
application of force or in any method of stopping it, that would 
certainly be the aim of the law. And it is our policy to try and carry 
that out as best Ave may. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You say that is the policy, but isn't that the 
law to-day? 

Mr. Chamberlain. That is the law; but, as I say, the method of 
carrying it out is not as clear as it might be. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I am asking whether that is not the law ? 

jNIr. Chamberlain. Quite so, in my understanding. 

Chief Justice Hazen. So that it is unlawful, therefore, for a Ca- 
nadian fishing vessel to leave, say, the banks with a cargo of fish and 
to enter at an American port without going to a Canadian port^ 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). In the meantime. And it is 
unlawful for a Canadian vessel to leave an American port and go 
directly to the fishing grounds. It must go to a Canadian port, enter 
there, and then clear from there? 

-Mr. Chamberlain. That's my understanding. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is there not even more than that involved ? Is 
it not a fact that she must not only physicall}^ go from our port to a 
Canadian port and thence to the fishing grounds and also from the 
fishing grounds to a Canadian port before she comes to our port, but 
must she not also go into the Canadian port in both cases in order 
to comply with our law- — change her character from that of a fishing 
vessel to that of a trading vessel? 

Mr. Chamberkmn. That is undoubtedly so. It ceases to be a 
catcher of fish and is an ice box. 

Secretary Eedfield. She changes her character from a fish-catching 
vessel to a fish-transporting vessel. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would you allow me to ask j^ou this, Mr. 
Chamberlain? Perhaps it is an unfair question, but in what way 
would it be to the disadvantage of the commercial interests, or the 
fishing interests of the United States, if a Canadian fishing vessel 
was permitted to clear from an American port right to the fishing 
grounds ? 



16 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Chamberlain. AVell. is that a question? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you object 
to an answer, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Eedeield. I have no objection to the question. If there 
is any disadvantage, Mr. Chamberlain, known to you. there is no 
objection to your stating it. 

Mr. Cha^mberlain. I might say that I am not familiar enough 
Avith the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- 
petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial 
proposition, it doesn't help at all. It doesn't help at all a system of 
this kind, but you nnist get back of that to the original purpose of 
the act and that whole scheme of laws. 

Secretary Redfield. This law was passed on what date ^ 

Mr. Chamberlain. 1793. 

Secretary Redfield. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels 
of war of the United States were wooden vessels? 

Mr. Cha:mberlain. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And the Avooden shipbuilding was carried on 
wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? 

Mr. Chamberlain. There was't any Pacific coast : it was there, but 
not in our occupation. 

Secretary Redfield. The answer is " Yes " ? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Xow. are you able to say upon what portion 
of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? 

Mr. Chamberlain. The North Atlantic coast. There were a 
few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay, and 
farther down, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. When you say '^ the North Atlantic coast." 
are you able to give any closer limit than that? 

Mr. Chamberlain. New England and New York, and I don't 
think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware 
and Chesapeake, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to 
say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New 
England and New York ? 

Mr. Cha:mberlain. You would have to take in the Delaware, I 
think. 

Secretary Redfield. From what source was the United States 
NavA' of that period recruited for its seamen? 

Mr. Chamberlain. It was altogether an American Navy, you 
knoAv. That is, the personnel of the merchantmen and the other 
vessels Avere all American. It wasn't until the Civil War that the 
law Avas repealed, requiring tAvo-thirds of the creAvs to be Americans. 

Secretary Redfield. That throAvs light upon the matter, but it 
isn't quite "an ansAver to my question. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Will yon state your question oyer again ? 

Secretary Redfield. Froi'n what source Avas the Navy and mer- 
chant marine of that period recruited? 

Mr. Chamberlain. From the maritime population which was in 
the seaboard States. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such 
as there were at that time? 



AMEKICA]S"-CAXADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFEKEITCE. 17 

Mr. Chamberlain. Oh, yes. 

Secretary REDriELD. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, was 
there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of 
the country coulcl at that time be recruited? 

Mr. Chamberlain. The fishing fleet Avas not hirge in proportion 
to the merchant fleet, so I can't quite gather your question; can't 
quite gather the drift of it. 

Secretary Eedeield. What I am trying to get upon the records is 
the exact facts regarding tlie circumstances under wliicli that law 
was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable 
to a condition that has since passed away or not. 

Mr. Chamberlain. It was intended to a very large extent as a 
military measure. 

Secretary Redfield. To supply a source from whence the Xa\y 
and the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions Avhich 
by law required that recruiting to be confined to American citizens: 
that is a fact, isn't it? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. Of course, there were not anj^ 
steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may 
resume where I was 

Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. 

Mr. Chamberlain (continuing). The conditions have very mate- 
rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a 
ver}' large part of our fishing population, as von gentlemen are all 
aware, at the present time, is not American population at all, it is 
not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it 
is not naturalized. Now, the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak 
with much more exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within 
the general observation of us all that on the New England coast 
there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some 
parts of Massachusetts thej nuike up almost the entire fishing popu- 
lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of 
California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu 
there are quite a number of Japanese, and singularly enough, we 
developed only a few dajs ago, you may recall, a statement that in 
one place — I don't recall whether it was San Pedro or not — there 
were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, 
at least, enemies of the United States, and the question was whether 
these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- 
ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, 
and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased 
to have just that relationship to the national defense. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able 
to say what the procedure is as to cost and time required to transfer 
a Canadian vessel from her fishing character to her trading character. 

Mr. Found. I am afraid I can't answer that question with full 
exactness. I don't know whether it would be competent for a fishing- 
vessel to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a 
merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. I am in- 
clined to think that it would be. A fishing vessel operates under a 
license with us and a commercial vessel under a register, and she 
could come in and take out a register, which Avould be a matter of 
not more than a few clays. 

519.^0—18 2 



16 AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Well, is that a question? 

Chief Justice Hazex. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you ol3Ject 
to an answer. Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Redfield. I have no objection to the question. If there 
is an}" disadvantage. Mr. Chamberlain, known to you. there is no 
objection to your stating it. 

Mr. Chamberlain. I might say that I am not familiar enough 
with the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- 
petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial 
])roposition, it doesn'.t help at all. It doesn't help at all a system of 
this kind, but you nuist get back of that to the original purpose of 
the act and that whole schejne of laws. 

Secretary Redfield. This law was passed on Avhat date ( 

Mr. Chamberlain, 1793. 

Secretary Redfield. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels 
of war of the United States were wooden vessels? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And the wooden shipbuilding was carried on 
wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? 

Mr. Chamberlain. There was't any Pacific coast ; it was there, but 
not in our occupation. 

Secretary Redfield. The answer is " Yes "? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, are you able to say upon what portion 
of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? 

Mr. Cha]mberlain. The North Atlantic coast. There were a 
few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay. and 
farther down, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. When you say '" the North Atlantic coast," 
are you able to give any closer limit than that? 

Mr. Chamberlain. New England and New York, and I don't 
think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware, 
and Chesapeake, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to 
say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New 
England and New York? 

Mr. Cha^iiberlain. You would have to take in the Delaware, I 
think. 

Secretary Redfield. From what source was the United States 
Navy of that period recruited for its seamen? 

Mr. Chamberlain. It was altogether an American Navy, you 
know. That is, the personnel of the merchantmen and the other 
vessels were all American. It wasn't until the Civil War that the 
law was repealed, requiring two-thirds of the crews to be Americans. 

Secretary Redfield. That throws light upon the matter, but it 
isn't quite an answer to my question. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Will you state your question over again? 

Secretary Redfield. From what source was the Navy and mer- 
chant marine of that period recruited? 

Mr. Chamberlain. From the maritime population which was in 
the seaboard States. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such 
as there were at that time? 



AMEKICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 17 

Mr. Chambeelain. Oh, yes. 

Secretaiy Redfield. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, aa'us 
there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of 
the countr}^ could at that time be recruited? 

Mr, CpiambePvLaix. The fishing fleet was not hirge in proportion 
to the merchant fleet, so I can't quite gather your question ; can't 
quite gather the drift of it. 

Secretary Redfield. What I am trying to get upon the records is 
the exact facts regarding the circumstances under which that law 
was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable 
to a condition that has since passed aAvay or not. 

Mr. Chamberlain. It was intended to a xerj large extent as a 
military measure. 

Secretary Redfield. To supply a source from whence the Xa\y 
and the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions which 
by law required that recruitiug to be confined to American citizens; 
that is a fact, isn't it? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Of course, there were not any 
steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may 
resume where I was 

Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. 

Mr. Chamberlain (continuing). The conditions have very mate- 
rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a 
ver}^ large part of our fishing population, as you gentlemen are all 
aware, at the present time, is not American population at all. it is 
not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it 
is not naturalized. Now\ the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak 
with much uiore exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within 
the general observation of us all that on the New England coast 
there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some 
parts of Massachusetts ihej make up almost the entire fishing popu- 
lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of 
California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu 
there are quite a number of Japanese, ancl singularly enough, we 
developed only a few days ago, you may recall, a statement that in 
one place — I don't recall whether it was San Pedro or not — there 
were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, 
at least, enemies of the United States, and the question was whether 
these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- 
ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, 
and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased 
to have just that relationship to the national defense. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able 
to say what the procedure is as to cost ancl time required to transfer 
a Canadian vessel from her fishing chai'acter to her trading character. 

Mr. Found. I am afraid I can't answer that question with full 
exactness. I don't know whether it would be competent for a fishing 
vessel to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a 
merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. I am in- 
clined to think that it would be. A fishing vessel operates under a 
license with us and a commercial vessel under a register, and she 
could come in and take out a register, which would be a matter of 
not more than a few days. 

51950—18 2 



20 AMERIGAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEElSrCE. 

Mr. Saveet. If the hiAv has any etftx't. if it reaches any artnal cases, 
the tendency of it wonlcl be, wonld it not. to diminish the qnantity of 
fresh fish brought into American markets I 

Mr. Chamberlain. I shonkl think so: yes. Oi course, it might be 
said, upon the other hand, you knoAv, that if you did this, there 
Avould not be any American fishermen and that the Canadian fishing- 
popuhition -wouki increase; that is going into a theoretical discussion 
that I don't think I can throw any particuhir light on: it would be 
merely the opinion of one man. 

Secretary Kedfield. Mr. Chief Justice, do you wish to ask ]\Ir. 
Chamberlain ;iny questions t 

Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. sir. 

Mr. Desbakats. I was wondering. Mr. Chamberlain, in reading 
over that clause of the law. whether it was the actual law or the in- 
terpretation of it which prevented the clearing of the fishing vessel 
from an American port for the high seas. Under the law coasting 
is prohibited to any American ships. I am not quite* so clear as to 
why a foreign vessel should not be cleared for the high seas. Is 
there any specific clause in your law. or is it a matter of interpre- 
tation i 

Mr. Chamberlain. It is a matter of interpretation orowing out of 
that. 

Mr. Desbakats. It is the interpretation that has grown out of that. 

Mr. Chamberlain. And it dates back a great many years. It 
goes so far back as in the time of Justice Story. Cases came up 
where not a foreign vessel was involved, but Ave are making even a 
stronger case — the case of A'essels clearing Avith a license for the 
coasting trade Avhen they Avere going into the fisheries, or A-ice versa. 
I have a case. Avhich I can give you later on. if you Avant it. Avliere the 
vessels Avere held in the closest distinction, to the literal observation 
of the difference betAveen tAvo papers, the paper for the coasting 
trade — the license for the coasting trade, and the license for the fish- 
eries, and it Avas held that the use of one in the other trade carried 
Avith it forfeiture. So I think that there is no doubt but that the 
policy has been tniiform in its atlirmation and in its enforcement. " The 
evidence is, as yon know, that Canadian vessels have not. as a rule, 
gone into our port^? in the fishing business. 

Secretary Redeield. It has been stated by the Chief Justice and one 
of our other friends that the practice on the Pacific coast is for the 
fishing vessels to go in on the Pacific coast from the fishing grounds 
and sell their catch in Seattle, you may say. and then go wherever 
they choose. Avhether to the fishing grounds or to a Canadian port. 

Mr. ForNo. If you.Avill pardon me. in place of coming in to sell 
their catch, they come in frequently Avhen they are scarce of bait to 
obtain bait. and. after prcxniring bait, they are then cleared directly 
for the fishing ground. I don't know of instances Avhere they have 
gone in to sell their fish. 

Dr. Smith. That was the impression I got. 

]Mr. Found. I am sorry I created that. Following that further, 
they are permitted to do that, and each trip that they enter Alaskan 
waters, they are required to ent^r. I suppose that is a special statute? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Xo : there isn't any special statute. 



AMEEICAISr-CAlSrADIAjSr EISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 21 

Mr. Found. Every Canadian fishing vessel that goes north is re- 
quired to enter at Ketchikan and is cleared immediately for the 
high sea. 

Mr. CiiAMHEiJLAiN. You surprisc me when you say that. 

Dr. Smith. Why is the vessel required to go to Ketchikan if it 
is fishing in extraterritorial waters? 

Mr. Fouxn. She must enter, and it is rather painful, because it 
usually costs her from eight to thirteen dollars. 

Dr. Smith. Wh}^ is she required to enter? 

Mr. Found. Because all vessels are. 

Secretary Ri':DrTELD. I am mighty glad you suggested that. Let's 
get the facts out and turn them to the light of day. 

Mr. Found. I am not suggesting that there is a discrimination 
against Canadian vessels, as American vessels are required to enter 
and pay similar fees. I think you will find that the fees run ac- 
cording to the size of the vessel, usually avei'aging from eight to 
thirteen dollars each time. 

Mr. Chamberlain. There is something here that I will find in a 
minute or two that was due to the unsettled condition of Alaska 
that required vessels to make an entry at the nearest place and then 
go out, because there were no customhouses and nobody there. 

Dr. S^riTH. Why should a Canadian vessel be recjuired to go to an 
Alaskan port when it is fishing in extraterritorial waters? 

Mr. Found. She enters Alaskan waters when she sails up through 
these narrow channels, going north. 

Chief Justice Hazen. She has to pass through territorial waters 
of the Ignited States on her Avay to the fishing grounds. 

Mr. Chamberlain. That law is one that had not occurred to me at 
the time, but I see its bearing. That is really the law in regard to 
the pretention of smuggling and all that sort of thing. As I say. 
there wei'e very few customhouses up there and that law dates back 
to the time when the ship that once came within the territorial 
Avaters of Alaska was reported to the nearest customhouse, who 
looked it over and said, " Go ahead."" That is how that would be 
accounted for. 

Chief Justice ITazen. And she came back and reported on the Avay 
back. 

Mr. Found. She must have a bill of health : that is the only point 
where it costs a Canadian vessel more than an American vessel. A 
foreign fishing vessel must have a bill of health from the consul at 
ihe (\inadian port she leaves. That costs $5. Tonnage is 2 cents per 
net ton and the custom broker's fee is $2. On the usual-sized vessels 
it is about $1)^), on the smaller vessels less. As T say. it is not dis- 
criminatory. 

Secretary Eedfield. So that I understand tlie law requires an 
American customs collector to do that in Alaska ? 

Mr. Found. Yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. Which the law forbids him to do in Boston; 
and if that customs collector 

Mr. Cha:mberlain. I wouldn't put it that way. 

Secretary Eedfield. I am speaking my understanding of it. and 
I want to know if it is rio-ht : and if we can assume that collector 



22 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFERENCE. 

to be trrinsf erred from Alaska to New Eiig-land. lie would find him- 
self oblig-ed to reverse his procedure in tlie case of a vessel which 
we might assume, in the meantime. Avonld come around through the 
Panama Canal 

Mr. Found. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Redfikld. To carry on the same business on the Atlantic 
coast which it had been carrying on in the Pacific? I want to get 
that straightened out, because if that is the case we have hold of 
something that requires thought. Let us assume for the moment — I 
want to knoAv if I am correct : 1 am asking a question — that a Cana- 
dian halibut schooner is the vessel in question. _ If the matter is 
correctly stated to me, or if I \inderstand it correctly, that vessel, 
going to fish upon the high seas in the Pacific, is obliged for physi- 
cal reasons of stress of weather and other sufficient cause to enter 
the port at Ketchikan and take a clearance thence which is given 
to her under the laAV for the high seas. She is sold, it is assumed, to 
owners in Nova Scotia who wish to operate her in the same business 
on the Atlantic, and for the purpose it is transferred. It makes a 
voyage through the Panama Canal to the North Atlantic coast, 
and then it is supposed in the illustration that the same collector 
who issues her clearance in Ketchikan has been transferred to the 
American poi't on the North Atlantic coast where the vessel seeks 
clearance, and there the same officer is obliged to refuse to the same 
vessel, doing the same business, the very clearance which he was 
required by law to give her in Alaska. Now, that is as I understand 
the facts; is that your understanding of the facts. Mr. Found if 

Mr. FoFND. Yes, sir; that has been my understanding. 

Mr. CiiAMBEKLAiN. jNIy understanding is that the Constitution 
provides for a uniform regulation of commerce, and if any such con- 
dition exists, of course, there is a mistake on the part of the man 
in Alaska. The deputy collector, whoever he is, in his zeal to see 
that no smuggling is attempted by these fishing vessels that go 
through his jurisdiction, is holding them close to the smuggling law 
and has overlooked the fact that he should not allow these vessels 
to clear for the high seas. Of course, there is an easy thing to do; 
all we have to do is to tell him that when those vessels come there 
not to let them go. AYe can hardly do that in these days, though. 

Secretary Redfield. But, Mr. Cliamberlain. assume that to be true, 
the question is not as to the conduct of the collector in either case: 
the question is, what is the law ? I think we ought to ask Mr. Quig- 
ley and yourself to take that matter up. 

]Mr. QuiGLEY. May I read this provision of law ? 

Secretary Redfield. Have you the law there? 

Mr. QuiGLEY. Yes, sir. I will read R. S. 105-1:, on page :274 of the 
Bureau of Navigation publication, viz. The navigation laws. 

The laws of the United States relating to customs, conmien-e. and navi.iia- 
tion are extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of the 
territory ceded to the United States by the Emperor of Russia by treaty con- 
c-luded "at Washinjiton on the thirtieth day of March, anno Domini eighteen 
hundred and sixty-seven, so far as the same may be applicable thereto. 

Now. that extends the navigation laws, as well as the customs 
laws over the Territorv of Alaska. 



AMERICAJST-CAISrADIAlSr FISHERIES COlSTFEREIsrCE. 23 

Secretaiy Kedfield. But is there a special statute provided for 
Alaska : and, if so, are those laws applicable thereto 'i 

Mr. QuiGLET. There may be special statutes under the customs 
laws. 

Secretary Redfield. Perhaps it would take too long uoay to get 
the detail of it, but it appears to be the case, on the face of things, 
that there is a diyersit}^ of practice here which may, or may not, have 
a legal basis; and I think we can't do better than to trace it down. 
If there is a contradiction in our laAvs, that ought to be found; 
that's what we are here to turn up. 

Mr. Chamberlain. It isn't reall3\ Mr. Secretary, as I say, an essen- 
tial conflict, because the situation that jou described does credit to 
your very fertile mind; but you know as Avell as I do that it isn't 
likely to arise on the New England coast, where there are custom- 
houses all along the Avay; and, furthermore, ships don't stop at 
Gloucester on their Avay to farther ports. What the Alaska man is 
tiying to do is this: Years ago, and I don't know, maybe it is so 
now, there used to be considerable laxity in the matter of smuggling, 
and particularly in the matter of snuiggiing strong liquor, which we 
are all against now, but there used to be a lot of that, and it used 
to be done by fishing vessels as well as hj other vessels, and collectors 
did make those vessels come in there, and very likely they said. 
"We will let you go out so long as you report to us; we will let you 
go out and fish." Well, the collector had no right to do it. There 
is no doubt about that : if it has been done, it should be discontinued. 
This law is quite clear, and it applies to the Territory of Alaska just 
as much as it does to the rest of us. 

Secretary Redfield. Unless superseded by special statute. 

Mr. Chamberlaix. Well, a special statute wouldn't hold because it 
would be a violation of the constitutional requirements. It couldn't 
be done. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, Mr. Chamberlain, it seems to me it is 
our duty to inquire whether it has this bearing, whether this practice, 
which you suggest is an unlawful practice, possibly surviving from 
the ancient claj^s of smuggling. If it has that bearing, we should 
inquire as to whether the American fishing trade in the Pacific 
coast has been injured, or has even claimecl to be injured, by the 
privilege thus granted ; and that has a distinct bearing upon the 
question, whether the request for the privilege upon the Atlantic 
coast, which has been thus far declined, carries with it a threat to 
the Atlantic interests. It has a very direct bearing on the matter, 
and I think it is very, very important. I wish yon would ascertain 
for the conference whether this is the fact in Alaskan waters, 
whether, to your knowledge and to the knowledge of the bureau 
officials, there have ever been complaints as to the matter, and under 
what law the custom does exist; and, in short, throw the fullest pos- 
sible light upon the entire transaction. Don't you think that would 
be a good plan, Mr. Sweet ? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes ; but I should like to call attention to the fact 
that there is one difference between the two things — the Atlantic and 
the Pacific. The case of the Coquet and the other cases referred to 
involved the discharging of cargoes at American ports. The Ketchi- 
kan case, of course, did not. One matter that ought to be considered 



24 A:\IKR1CAX-CAXAI)1AX i'lSJiKRIES conferexce. 

in coniUH'tion with this is. what Avould be the rule on the Athuitie 
side in ease of a Canadian vessel pnttino- into an American port on 
aeeoinit of stress of weather and not discharo-ing- anv cariio? 

J^ecretary KEOFiKLn. Ts it not the fact that the only qnestion Avhich 
is concerned here is the -qnestion of the riolu of clearance for the 
hii>-h seas^ Now. I take it. nnder onr law there is no objection to a 
Canadian vessel discharoino- her cargo in Ketchikan, coming from a 
Canadian port to Ketchikan, and the statement is made that the cus- 
tom has been and still is to grant Avliat is in all effect a clearance 
from Ketchikan, an American port, to the high seas. That is the 
only question, it seems to me. concerning the matter, a single narrow 
question. I think Ave ought to know Avhether that is the question. 
1 think we ought to know Avhether that is the practice, under Avhat 
law it is done, to Avhat extent it prevails, whether it has caused com- 
plaint on the part of anybody, whether it is advantageous or dis- 
advantageous, we nuist get at it. 

Mr. Chamheklaix. You say that at Seattle they allow Canadian 
vessels to come in and clear for the high seas? 

Dr. 8:mith. For the high seas. 

Mr. FouxD. I wouldn't say absolutely Seattle, but certainly in 
A^'ashington State ports. 

Mr. CiiA:Mr>F.iu„vix. AA'ell. that's all in one district. 

Mr. FouxD. 1 know there have been cases of Canadian vessels go- 
ing over and getting bait and going directly to the fishing grounds, 
or else I have been absolutely misinformed by the owner of the vessel 
who told me of the case. 

Dr. S:mith. This may not be an important question. b\U it occm-s to 
me jF.^t for the information it may elicit. Suppose an American ves- 
sel, })ropelled by steam, on her way to the Grand Banks, sails through 
the territorial waters of XoAa Scotia. Is sho obliged to enter at a 
port in Xma Scotia t 

^Iv. Foi xn. Xo. sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Freedom of navigation. 

^Ir. Found. As long as she doesn't dock. She may come in and re- 
main in port for 48 hours, if she doesn't dock: there isn't anything to 
prevent her froju doing that. All we can do is to send policemen 
afttn- her to see that she does not smuirgle anything on board. 

Secretary Hkdfiffd. If we have got that matier clear on the record 
wo have done something. 

^Ir. Fouxn. One of the things that has come before us. and very 
urgently, is that in view of that treatment of Canadian vessels in 
Alaskan waters it has been suggested, and strongly suggested, many 
times in Canada that as all the Seattle vessels go up through our pas- 
sages in going up to the fishing grounds similar treatment should be 
rei|uireil of them there. That has been suggested and pressed on 
many cu'casions. but we felt that there was no discrimination in 
Alaska, as you were requiring your own vessels to enter, too. 

Secretary Reofiflu. Subject to fnrther inquiry and information, 
the note is made for the consideration of the American conunissioners. 
whether, in view of the freedom of passage of American vessels in 
C'anadian territorial waters, consideration should not be given to a 
reconunendaticm relaxing the requirements upon Canadian vessels 
l^a'^sing through American territmial Avaters in Alaska. 



AMEEICAX-CAISrADIAiSr FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 25 

Mr. Sweet. Alaska or anywhere else, for that matter. 

Secretary Eedeield. That is the onl}^ place it applies. 

Dr. Smith. I would like to develop as definitely as possible the 
necessity for the Canadian vessels bound out of Prince Eupert or 
other ports of British Columbia to pass through Alaskan ports. 

Mr. Fou>'D. If you just glance at the map. you will see it. Going 
outside, they encounter the rough seas, just like the American vessels 
going outside Vancouver Island and the other isles; it is to get 
smooth water and make a quick voyage that they go inside. 

Secretarv Redfield. Make speed, in short. 

Mr. Sweet. Also safety. 

Secretary- Redfield. Is there anything further. ^Ir. Chief Justice. 
^'■ou would like to ask Mr. Chamberlain? 

Chief Justice Hazex. No, sir. 

Secretarv Redfield. Anything you would like to ask. Mr. Des- 
barats? 

yh\ Desbakats. I was asking Mr. Chamberlain if he knows to 
what extent tlie same applies to fishing vessels. He said he would 
look it up. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you any questions to ask Mr. Chamber- 
lain. Mr. Found? 

Mr. Found. Xo. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, we are very much obliged 
to you. Of course, it is understood that any of you will ask ]Mr. 
Chamberlain any questions you have in mind. 

Mr. Desbakats. jNIt. Chamberlain said something about some 
special privileges that fishing vessels enjoyed in the way of salt; do 
those still exist? 

Mr. Chambeelaix. They had free rebate on their salt. That was 
given them as a sort of substitute for the bounty that they used to 
get. but my impression is that salt is on the free list for everybody, 
and has been for some years. 

Secretary Redfield. What did that free salt mean? 

Mr. Chamberlain. There used to be a heavy duty on salt and it 
Avas rebated. The salt was used in curing the products of American 
fisheries. It was a sort of a sop, you see. How much it amounted 
to. I don't know. 

Secretarv Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, so far as your knowledge 
and the scope of your service go, have the American fishing fleet or 
the American fishermen any special legal privileges or advantages 
of any kind, oi- natural in some way? 

Mr. CiiA^Nrr^EKLAix. Xot that I know of, imder existing conditions. 

Secretai-y Rkdfield. Is there any form of boimty or rebate in their 
favor. 

^Iv. CiiA^iir.ERLAix. There is no bounty, and I don't know of any 
rebate. I don't know of anything that they have. As I say, they 
used to have this salt rebate, but that disa]:)peared when salt was on 
the free list. and. of course, incidentally, the effect of the tariff was 
sn]-)i)nsed to be in their favor: that is. the tariff on foreigii-caught 
fish. The fish of the American fishermen were, of course — well, that 
doesn't exist any more, but I haven't the exact dates when those were 
changed. I think some of it was on the ordinary tariff. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Quigley. are you aware of any laws grant- 
ing special privileges to American? 



26 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. QiTiGLEY. I will read this one, on page 171, "Navigation 
Laws" (E. 8. 1:220): 

No vessel belonging to any citizen of the United States trading from one port 
within the United States to another port within the United States, or employed 
in the hank, whale, or other fisheries, shall be subject to tonnage tax or duty, 
if such vessel be licensed, registered, or enrolled. 

Secretary Redfield. Then. I nnclerstand from that that all such 
American vessels are free from tonnage taxes? 

Mr. QxiGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cha:mbeklain. That applies to coastwise vessels too. Tonnage 
taxes are reall}" insignificant in this country. 

Secretary KEDFtEnn. Let me ask you this question: Are Canadian 
fishing vessels entering our ports subject to a tonnage tax? 

Mr. CriAMBEKLAiis'. They don't enter our ports, but when they do, 
as in Alaska, those ships have to pay 2 cents a net ton, and they 
have to pay that not more than five time a year; that is. if the same 
ship came in six times, it Avonldn't have to pay anything for the sixth 
time. 

Secretary Redfield. Are there any other fees or licenses that a 
Canadian vessel has to pay entering our ports that an American ves- 
sel Avonldn't have to pay? 

Mr. CiiAALBEKLAix. The entry and clearance fees are the same. 
The bill of health was spoken of. There is rather a delicate question 
on that that has come up not in connection with British vessels, but 
in the case of Japanese vessels, and the collection of 20 cents fee for 
certificate to bill of health, and T believe it is collected on other for- 
eign boats, but not on American ships. 

Secretary Redfield. AVhat I want to get at is whether there is or 
is not, and if there is, in what form it is. something to oti'set the claim 
that may be made as to the advantage of your bounty. We have 
already had facts placed before us to indicate that the bounty is not 
large. Now. if they pay a tonnage tax and we don't. I want to 
know what it amounts to. If they pay for a health service. I want 
to know about it. Now. what else is there? We want to get every- 
thing. 

Mr. Quigiey. if you find any cases where there are obligations of 
any nature or restrictions of any kind imposed upon the Canadian 
vessels, not imposed upon our own, will you please bring them to 
our notice, that we may Inue them made a matter of record and con- 
sideration ? 

Mr. QriGLEY. Yes. sir. 

Mr. ForxD. There was one other point that I'd like to ask that 
came up in the discussion the other day. There were quite a number 
of United States fishing vessele that were transferred to the Canadian 
registry, and I was wondering if ]Mr. Chamberlain has the number 
available. 

Mr. Chamberlain. I have the list of transfers: I don't know 
whether there were few or many. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chaiiiberlain, will you furnish us the list 
of transfers? 

Mr. Chamberlain. How far back would you like to have ns go? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Three vears. 



AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. 27 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, suppose you take it for 
three years prior to the hiw which forbade such transfers under war 
conditions, so as to get a full three-year period of activities? 

Chief Justice Hazen. A number of fishing vessels just previous to 
that time were sold to the Canadian Government for patrol vessels. 

Mr. Found. Can you tell for Avhat purpose they were transferred? 

Mr. Chamberlain. When they go out from our flag, that's the end 
of them on our records. 

Mr. Found. If we can get the names of the vessels, we can get 
the rest of it. 

Mr. Chamberlain. There were six that were transferred, because 
the oAvners said that under the rule that carried the crew space re- 
quirements of the seaman's laAv retroactively into ships that were 
already built, they could not operate their ships under our flag. 
So far as the future ships are concerned we can do that, but we 
can't rebuild these ships again. You may recall the cases. They 
were over in Connecticut — I have forgotten just wdiere they were — ■ 
and we had quite a full statement of them. They Avere sold in Can- 
ada; I don't remember the names. 

Secretary Redfield. You give us back for three years prior to the 
prohibition. 

Dr. Smith. That would be 1914. 1915, and 1916. 

Mr. QuiGLEY. Mr. Secretary, I have drafted a bill in connection 
with that lobster matter. 

(Copies of bill distributed.) 

Secretary Redfield. We shall noAv adjourn till 2.30 this afternoon. 
Avhen Ave Avill call Gen. Uhler. 

(Adjournment.) 

afternoon session. 

Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General of the Steam- 
boat-Inspection Service, appeared before the conference. 

STATEMENT BY GEORGE UHLER, SUPERVISING INSPECTOR 
GENERAL OF THE STEAMBOAT-INSPECTION SERVICE. 

Secretary Redfield. General, it lias been suggested that there is 
a difference in the requirements of j'our service and of the correspond- 
ing Canadian serA^ice, Avliich may, as things noAv are. make their 
requirements not only as severe but possibly more severe than your 
own. I. pointed out in that connection that by reason of the desire 
to expedite shipping during the war in eA-^ery practicable AA'ay, there 
had been more or less modifications of our former extreme require- 
ments and that at the present they were not Avhat they Avere during 
the period of peace. The matter has reference to Aessels propelled 
by steam — I think your serA^ce doesn't take under its scope vessels 
propelled by motors? 

Gen, Uhler. Yes; over 15 tons, that are engaged in carrying- 
freight or passengers. There is an exemption for motor fishing 
A'^essels, those that are engaged in fishing as a regular business. The 
Revised Statutes section 4426, referred to that, sir, quite particularly. 
If you care to hear it read, I Avill be glad to do so. 

Secretary Redfield. I think it would be Avell to read it if it isn't 
too long;. 



28 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. 

(xeii. Uhler. It might be well to explain that the first ])art of tliis, 
Mr. Secretary, incorporates in the requirements for inspection those 
vessels that were previously exempted. Instead of makinu' a new 
bill they just picked up the ones previously exempted and put them 
in as a requirement. 

(Statute 4426 read by Gen. Uhler. See Exhibit E, p. 309.) 

Secretary Redfield. Noav, what are the facts regarding such hsh- 
ing vessels as go Avith power and what are the facts regarding steam 
trawlers that go to the fishing banks? 

Gen. Uhler. The trawlers are not exempted : they come imder 
the regulation of our service and are made to meet the requirements 
of ocean service for their particular class. 

Secretary Redfield. What about the motor-driven vessels? 

Gen. I^iiLER. I have no jurisdiction over that. 

Secretary Redfield. You have no jurisdiction o\er what we know 
as a schooner with a motor in it, even those vessels of the larger type 
of the fishing fleet ? 

Gen. Uhler. It nuikes no difi'erence what their size, sir, they are 
exempted if they are engaged in fishing as a regular business. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you take any cognizance of their hulls? 

Gen. Uhler. None. 

Secretary Redfield. What supervision over their construction and 
condition is had by any public authority? 

Gen. Uhler. None that I know of, sir, except the documenting of 
those vessels by the customs authorities. 

Secretary Redfield. What inspection do they get from the classi- 
fication society? 

Gen. I^HLER. I don't know whether they are built under the rules 
of any classification society, but if they are so built and are looking- 
for class, they must meet, of course, the requirements of the special 
classification society that registers them and be built in accordance 
Avith their specifications, wdiatever they may be. 

Secretary Redfield. W^here are those vessels usually built? 

Gen. Uhler. For the fishermen? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Gen. Uhler. Many of them are built at Essex, some on the Penob- 
scot, and some in Boston. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know how they are insured? 

Gen. Uhler. I do not, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. As regards the steam trawlers, they come 
under i-egular ocean inspection? 

Gen. Uhler. Absolutely, just the same as a cargo ship. 

Secretary Redfield. How far have their inspection standards 
been modified during the war? 

Gen. Uhler. None whatever regarding vessels now in service. 
There have been some modifications made regarding the testing and 
the inspection of steel entering into their boilers. 

Secretary Redfield. New boilers? 

Gen. I^iiLER. New boilers, and, of course, there has been some con- 
siderable change in the requirements — the experience required for 
officers' licenses, etc. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you have anything to do with the licensing 
of the officers of fishinp- vessels? 



AMEBIC AX-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 29 

Gen. Uhler. They have no licenses except those under our juris- 
diction. 

Secretary Redfield. Except as they may have one from some other 
emplojanent? I mean the masters or other officers. 

Gen. Uhler. The officers of motor fishing vessels are not required 
to have an}^ certificate and likely would have none, except perhaps 
some of them might hold the certificate that we require from masters 
of sailing vessels of over 700 tons. It might be that some masters of 
fishing vessels hold licenses of that character and class. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, if I understand you correctly, the fact 
is that the vessels of the fishing fleet are exempt from the inspection 
of your service? 

Gen. Uhler. Yes ; excepting the steam trawlers. 

Secretary Redfield. And the officers of the fishing fleet are not 
obliged to take the examination which your service requires of the 
sailing vessels; that's correct? 

Gen. Uhler. Quite right. 

Secretary Rediield. Mr. Chief Justice, would jon like to ask any 
questions ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think so. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats, would you like to ask Gen. 
Uhler any questions? 

Mr. Desbarats. Where does the line of inspection begin? The 
fishing vessels are exempted from inspection, but the steam trawlers 
are subject to the inspection. Now, where is the line of division be- 
tween the vessels that are subject to the inspection and those that 
are not? 

Gen. Uhler. The line is draAvn by their class. 

Mr. Desbarats. The size? 

Gen. Uhler. No ; not size. It would make no difference what the 
size was of a vessel propelled by motor, if she was engaged regularly 
in the fishing business, under the provision of the law, she is exempt 
from inspection; she is exempt from any jurisdiction whatever of 
our service. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it the fact, then, that it is because they are 
not steam vessels? 

Gen. Uhler. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. That is the point that he wants. 

Gen. Uhler. If I may explain, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. 

Gen. Uhler. Before the advent of the motor vessel, under the laws 
of the Ignited States, every steam vessel was required to be inspected. 
She was obliged to carry an engineer and a pilot, no matter whether 
she was 10 feet long, for pleasure purposes, or commercial purposes, 
and engaged in carrying passengers, every steam vessel, every steam 
vessel at least — to use the exact phraseology of the law — propelled, in 
whole or in part, by steam shall be subject to the provisions of this 
title, which is Title LII (52) . In the advent of the motor boat, of the 
gasoline boat, this provision of the law, this section 4426, was 
amended by the addition of this provision requiring their inspection 
except when engaged in fishing as a regular business, which, as I re- 
member, w^as the veiy positive stand taken by Senator Frye. repre- 
senting a large constituency of fishermen, and Senator Hoar — I think 



30 AMERICAK-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEKCE. 

n( that time he represented the State of Massachusetts in the Senate — 
and it was upon their representations, I believe, as I remember the 
legislation, that the tishino- vessels were exempted. I might say it 
was mentioned that it might become necessary after a while to install 
mott)rs in some of the larger boats and even in some of the smaller 
boats iishing inshore. That is the history of the legislation. Steam 
was left jnst the same as before until a few j-ears ago. 

Cliief Justice Hazex. What I don't understand, General, is this: 
Why a trawler, which is a vessel engaged in fishing, should be subject 
to inspection anil another vessel of equal size as it engaged in fishing 
should not be. Is it because it is a steam vessel? 

Gen. I'liLKi;. Because it is a steam vessel and because of the sup- 
position that the machinery is more intricate. 

Chief Justice Haze>'. But. General, as I understand, all fishing- 
vessels are exempted whether they are propelled by steam or not. 

Gen. UiiLER. Oh, no. All vessels of above 15 gross tons, carrying 
freight or passengei's for hire, but not engaged in fishing as a regu- 
lar business, propelled by gas. fluid, naphtha, or electric motor, that 
is. the general type of the motor boat, is subject to inspection. 

Cliief Justice Hazkn. But if a trawler was propelled by naphtha 
or fluid it would come under that, too? 

Gen. Uhler. Absolutely. 

Secretary Eedfield. I thinlv we have been endeavoring for some 
time to get the hnv modified to bring the motor boat more generalh' 
under inspection, though not perhaps in this particular detail. 

Gen. UiiLER. Or not for this particular size or class, as we have 
known the motor boat, but now that they are coming in. fifteen hun- 
dred or two thousand tons, we have endeavored to have more legis- 
lation covering the insjiection and the requirements than they have 
to nuH^t now. 

Mr. Desbarats. I was going to ask if in the case of fishing vessels 
propelled by steam they have to carry licensed engineers? 

Gen. Uhler. Yes. sir. 

]Mr. Desbarats. And licensed captains and mates? 

Gen. Uheer. If she is more than 100 tons she has to carry a regular 
licensed master in addition to her certified mat^s. 

Secretary Eedfield. Hoav many mates? 

(tcu. Uhler. Oh. depending largely on the size. I think the 
trawlers carry — that's governed entirely by the seaman's law — two 
mates if they go moi-e than a hundred miles. That comes under 
4463. If they go more than that — let me quote that. This is sec- 
tion '2 of section 4463 of the Eevised Statutes, which is an amend- 
ment that was made about three years ago: 

(Sec. '2 of sec. 44(i3 of the Eevised Statutes read by (ren. Uhler. 
Stv Exhibit F. p. 3Gi>.) 

Dr. S>irrn. Those provisions apply to fishing vessels, steam 
trawlers? 

Gen. I^riLER. Xo: they are exempt. That section 4463 applies only 
to those vessels that are inspected by the service and that are under 
the jurisdiction of the service. 

Secretary Eedfield. That would apply to steam traAvlers. then, 
wouldn't it i 

(nM\. I'liLEi;. Yes. sir. 



AMEEICAiSr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 31 

Secretary Redfield. Hold on for a minute; when you answered 
Dr. Smith " ^o," that was a mistake, you didn't understand what he 
meant ? 

Gen. Uhlek. 1 didn't mean tliat the steam trawlers are exempt ; 
that applies to them just as well. If I may make it plain in this way, 
Mr. Secretary, there is no exemption for any vessel except she be a 
fishing vessel equipped with a motor other tlian steam. The motor 
fishing' vessel only is exempt; these vessels coming above 15 gross 
tons and carrying freight or passengers, come within the scope of the 
requirements for licensed officers. 

Mr. Desbai!Ats. A fishing trawler, or a fishing vessel; now, let us 
take a western fishing vessel ; she is not currying freight for hire — 
does she come under this inspection here ? 

Gen. Ui-iLEij. A fishing vessel? 

Mr. Desbarats. A steam fishing vessel. 

Gen. Uhlek. Certainly so, sir. 

Mr. Desbaeats. The term said '' for carrying freight."' Well, she 
is not carrying freight. 

Gen. Uhler. That refers to the motor vessel. '' All motor vessels 
of above 15 gross tons, carrying freight or passengers for hire, but 
not engaged in fishing as a. regular business, shall be inspected and 
shall carry licensed engineers and mates.'' 

Mr. Desbarats. All steam vessels com(> under the insj^ection, then? 

Geu; Uhler. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Steam vessels of any kind? 

Gen. Uhler. Unless they come in motor class of below 40 feet. 
She is then under the designation of a motor boat, and the act de- 
fines what is a motor boat. It must be less than G5 feet in length. 
She may be more than that, but if she is more than 15 tons she must 
be inspected. 

Secretary Redfield. ]Mr. Desbarats, what is the rule as regards the 
Canadian fishing vessels with reference to inspection ? 

Mr. Desbarats. Very similar to your own, Mr. Secretary. Any 
steam fishing vessel is subject to inspection of her machinery and in- 
spection of her equipment. The vessels that are propelled by sails 
or by motor are subject to inspection of equipment, but they are 
not subject to the inspection of machinery. 

Secretary Redfield. General, are fishing vessels subject to inspec- 
tion of equipment by you ? 

Gen. Uhler. The steam vessels, yes: but the motor fishing vessel is 
without our jurisdiction wholly. 

Secretary Redfield. Then I gather, Mr. Desbarats. in that respect 
your requirement, which involves that the Canadian vessel have 
her equipment inspected, is more severe than ours in that respect. 

Mr. Desbarats. Slightly. The inspection of the fishing vessel is 
not as severe as that of the trading vessel, but there is an inspection 
for equipment and the}^ have to carry certain life-saving appliances. 

Secretary Redfield. So that the question you asked this morning 
about the dories, Mr. Found- 

Mr. Found. That's a vexatious one with us. Our fishermen who 
haA'e dories are also required to carry lifeboats on the steam fishing 
vessels, and they themselves consider their dories very effective life- 
boats. I was wondering if, on your fishing vessels, you likewise 
require them to carry .sufficient lifeboats in addition to their dories. 



32 AMEKICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Gen. Uhlek. Yes; we liave had that same question before us be- 
fore. We won't recognize the dories as lifeboats. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you require lifeboats on your fishing ves- 
sels as well as dories? 

Mr. Found. I haven't come in contact with that side of it ; I don't 
know any of our motor fishing vessels that are carrying (glories, ex- 
cepting the .smaller ones on the Pacific coast. It is the bigger ones on 
which the question has arisen. 

Secretary Eedfield. Now, what I have got in my mind is to get 
the true balance of operation cost. For example, if it were shown, 
Mr. Chief Justice, that as against the bounty Avhich has been spoken 
of, you were, through your equipment laws, requiring a fishing 
schooner or fishing vessel equipped with a motor to carry a lifeboat, 
which we did not, then your bounty is more than otfset by the cost 
of the boat, and you have got the balance made clear. I think we 
ought to get before us, if we can, this afternoon, just what exact 
differences there are in the requirements, if any. What do you ask 
a boat, Mr. Desbarats, to carry, that is a motor fishing vessel of the 
same class as the Gloucester schooner? 

Mr. Desbarats. I am not as familiar with that act as I might be, 
as that doesn't come in my department. My impression is that on 
sailing vessels and motor fishing boats the inspection requirements 
{Q-e very light. It is for the protection of fishermen. 

Mr. Found. Our fishers' act. so far as the equipment on fishing- 
vessels is concerned, is for the fishermen's protection. I don't know 
whether there is an inspection act beyond this or not that applies to 
schooners. I might read this, section 63 of the fishers' act, section 8 
of the Statute of 1914. 

(Sec. 63 of the fishers' act, sec. 8 of the Statute of 1914, read by 
Mr. Found.) 

Mr. Found. So far as the steam fishing vessels are concerned the 
question has come before me from a fisherman's standpoint, and I 
am not aware that it goes beyond that they are required to carry 
lifeboats in addition to their fishing dories; that is, those that are 
not steam trawlers, like our fishing vessels on both sides of the 
Pacific coast. 

Secretaiy Redfield. Those that are not steam trawlers? 

Mr. Found. On the Pacific coast all the larger vessels and steam 
fishing vessels cany dories. 

Secretary Redfield. Ours are the same on the Pacific coast; the 
fishing vessels have to carr}^ doi'ies? 

Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Desbarats. Ours is just the same as with you. 

Secretary Redfield. It is my inference, from what we have heard, 
Mr. Chief Justice, that there is no substantial diiference. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I would draw the same inference — that there 
is no substantial diiference betAveen the two countries in that respect. 

Gen. Uhler. The inspection laws of this country, if I may suggest 
it, Mr. Secretary, are very similar to those of Canada. 

Secretary Redfield. Noav, General, how far does the seaman's law 
operate as regards fishing A^essels? 

Gen. Uhler. If I may quote it, Mr. Secretary, section 4516, under 
" Watches," the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby 
amended to read as follows : 



AMEKICAN-CANADIA^^ FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 33 

(Gen. Uliler read sec. 451G, under the heading of " Watches." 
He also stated that fishing vessels are exempt from the provisions of 
sec. 2 of the seaman's act, respecting hours of labor, etc. Sec. 2 was 
read by Gen. Uhler. See Exhibit G. p. 370.) 

Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps the general could tell us briefly, 
Mr. Secretary, what provisions of the seaman's act apply to fishing 
vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Are there any provisions in the seaman's 
act that apply to fishing vessels? 

Gen. Uhler. Unless they are especially exempted, all the pro- 
visions of the seaman's act apply. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would you tell us what there is in the sea- 
' man's act that would apply to fishing vessels? 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Quigiey, have you reached that ? 

Mr. Quigley. I will prepare a memorandum in that matter. (See 
Exhibit H, p. 371.) 

Mr. Desbarats. I was going to ask Gen. Uhler, as these fishing- 
vessels are not subject to inspection, how are these requirements of 
the seaman's act enforced? 

Gen. Uhler. It doesn't require that the Inspection Service enforce 
them; they are enforced by the customs ofHcers and collectors. 

Mr. Desbarats. For example, if there is insufficient crew space on 
the vessel? 

Gen. Uhler. In our inspection of a vessel, v.-e determine the space 
and everything that comes under what might be termed the general 
inspection of the vessel, but there are several requirements of the 
seaman's act that can only be determined by the collector, and. in 
fact, the seaman's act explains in some detail Avhat you must do and 
what you ma}' do under certain circumstances. 

Secretarv Eedfield. But that doesn't apply to fishing vessels. 

Gen. Uhler. Unless they are specifically exempted, it does. Of 
course we wouldn't inspect vessels at that time. The provisions of 
th seaman's bill would have to be pa^^sed upon by th'^ collector of 
customs. 

Mr. Desbarats. On a technical matter like thai:, I Avas wondering 
how it could be determined whether they lived up to it. 

Gen. Uhler. It is not very technical. They say that they must 
have so much space for so many men, and not more than two bertlis 
in height, one berth over the other, and f;o much cupola space, etc. 

Mr. Desbarats. In ordinary ships, I presume that your inspection 
is very much like the British inspection. They would mark on a 
compartment "so many cubic feet authorized for so many men.'" 

Gen. Uhler. That is done by the Bureau of Navigation, the mark- 
ing of compartments. 

Secretary Eedfield. That's Mr. Chamberlain's service; they have 
the measuring of the ships. 

Mr. Desbarats. In connection with the inspection of steam ma- 
chinery, it comes to us occasionally when American vessels apply 
for register that there is a difference; that while they could obtain 
register and have the machinery passed by American laws, they 
would have to change their machinery, under our requirements, and 
51950—18 3 



34 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

add certain tliino-s. Xow. T don't know wliother von are familiar 
with any dilt'erence of that kind, or what the reason niiaht he for 
those dilferences. 

Gen. Uhlek. I think that there is some dirt'erenee in the laws of 
the tAvo conntries in that respect. We proA*ide in onr hiAA- that the 
boilers and machinery of any foreign-built vessel admitted to Ameri- 
can registry may be accepted even thonirh they do not conform to the 
rules and regulations of our construction and of our instaihition. 
Section 14 of the act approved iSIarch 3, 1897, provides foi' that ex- 
emption. I don't believe that the Canadian law gives to a vessel 
entering its registry that same privilege. This 3 am quite sure of. 
that any foreign vessel seeking Canadian registry, "or securing Cana- 
dian registry will have the pressure of her boilers cut from 10 to t^O 
per cent, and they may cut the pi'essure as high as 25 per cent, if the 
boilers were not built under the Canadian rules and under Canadian 
survey. So that no matter how good the boilers are. whether they 
are new or old. it is within the judgment anil the discretion of the 
C^madian surveyor — the Canadian inspector, in this instance — to say 
to the man arbitrarily: " Your pressiu^e is cut 10, 15, or 20 per cent.'' 
or they are allowed to go up to 25 per cent, simply because the boil- 
ers are not built under the (\inadian rules and undei- Canadian 
survey. 

That, I am quite sure, is a fact, lliat comes to me not from any 
intimate knowledge of the law, but from our practice Avith Canadian 
inspectors on board. Avith which Ave are more or less familiar. 

Mr. Drskak ATS. It doesn't mean that the boiler is not as good as a 
boiler under Canadian inspection? 

(ren. Uhler. No, sir; not at all. 

Mr. Desharats. But it Avould mean that a \essel seeking Canadian 
registry would have to meet that. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Isn't it this, that vessels or boilers, when 
they are being built, are subject to the inspection and survey of the 
(xovernment inspectors? You knoAv then hoAv they haA'e been con- 
sti'ucted as the Avoi'k proceeds. The A'essels coming in from the 
I'nited States do not aft'ord them the opportunity of inspecting them 
in course of construction in Canada, Avhere boilers are being manu- 
factured. Therefore, they reduce the amount of pressure that is 
alloAved. 

(len. Uhler. Probably so. 1 don't know the motive, nor do I 
know the reason, but I knoAv that the American laAv fully provides 
for that proposition on any vessel seeking American registration. 
We htive proxided for that by an act of Congress, by Avhich Ave ad- 
mit the boilers and give them Avhat they are Avorth. Our rules and 
regidations have provided under this act of Congress that if there 
Avere lu) authentic recoi'd of the boiler and the material entering into 
the boiler, they Avould be given the value, if of steel, of 50,000; if of 
iron, of 45,000. We have so amended that noAv that if they furnish 
us Avith an authentic record of the material Avhich entered into the 
boiler Ave give them the steam pressure that the tensile streng-th 
justifies, dej^endent. of course, upon the condition of the boiler. 

Secretary Eedfield. In other Avords. they could get the same rat- 
ing that those same conditions Avould give an American boiler. Is 
(hat Avliat you mean? 

Gen. ITm.ER. Positivelv. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 35 

Secretary Redfield. I don't conceive, Mr. Chief Justice, that it is 
the natural wa\' to safeguard unknown construction or life history 
by a reduction of pressure, and yet, I should think it was feasible to 
obtain a record of that life history by cooperation with Gen. I^hler's 
service, which has that history. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It would appear that it is more difficult 
than to transfer an American vessel to a Canadian registry than to 
transfer a Canadian vessel to an American registry. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; that would seem to be so. That's, your 
understanding, isn't it? 

Gen. Uhler. Quite sure, sir. At the time that that law was en- 
acted, if I may continue, we admitted to Ameivican registry only 
those vessels which were wrccived upon the coast of the United' States 
tmd which were salvaged by an American company, and upon which 
there had been expended in American shipyards 75 per cent of her 
ultimate value. But that has been changed, and, in order to natural- 
ize, so to speak, the boilers and machinery of that vessel, it was nec- 
essary that this law be enacted to authorize the setting aside or the 
exemption from the law and the rules governing the re(iuirements 
for material and for construction purposes. 

Secretary Redfield. So far as this conference is concerned this 
applies to steam trawlers upon the Atlantic and to the steam fishing 
vessels of the Pacific. Let me ask, Mr. Found, if it is a fact tha't 
these vessels that were talked about a;; transferred in connection 
with Prhicc Rupeii- matters were steam vessels? 

Mr. Found. I know of none, unless they are small ones, like 
gasoline. 

Secretary Redfield. But it is a fact, is it — I don't know — that the 
nsual seagoing fishing vessel of the Pacific is a steamer? 

Mr. Found. All the bigger ones are; then there are some gasoline 
schooners and a number of boats that have gasoline power carrying 
three dories. 

Secretary Redfield. Small boats? 

Mr. Found. Yes, sir; they don't go far. 

Gen. Uhlei!. Their sailing vessels are e(]uipped with gasoline 
dories ? 

Mr. Found. Yes, sir; and some power boats that carrv three dories 
that don't go to the northern banks. 

Gen. Uhler. I might say, Mr. Secretary, I suppose thev have the 
same condition in the Canadian service, the installation of a motor 
in a schooner at once changes the character of her from a schooner 
to a motor vessel, under this law. She loses her identity as a 
schooner and becomes a motor boat. Xo matter if she uses her motor 
once a week or once a month, once the motor is installed her character 
is changed in the presence of that installation. 

Mr. Desbarats. That holds with us also. Our legislation, in a 
general way, provides for all power-driven vessels, fishing vessels 
being exempt in the auxiliary vessels but not in the steam — very 
similar to your legislation. 

Gen. Uhler. It seems to me that there is but little difference there. 

Secretary Redfield. It has no particular bearing on our subject: 
but it is the fact, is it not, General, so far as you know, that the 
quality of the boats is kept up in good shape ? 



36 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

GeJi. Ui-iLER. Very magnificently. 

Secretary Redfield. That, I understand, is true about the Canadian 
vessels ? 

Mr. For^;D. Yes; a ves'^:el is considered old if it is 4 years old. 
There seems to be a competition to have the nicest looking vessels. 

Secretary Eedfield. We have vessels in the Lighthouse Service 
that are in perfect condition, 66 and 68 years old, just as good as 
when they were made, but they don't build ships out of that material 
now. 

Any questions you would like to ask, Mr. Sweet ? 

Mr. Saveet. I understood the statement to have been made here 
two or three days ago that Canadian inspection laws for steam 
vescels were more rigid than ours. I would like to ask Gen. Uhler 
whetlier that is true — the inspection of steam vessels, machinerv, and 
hulls? 

Gen. Uhler. I think not, sir. There ma}' bs sorae dilference in the 
rules. Our rules may be a little more drastic in details of boiler 
bracing, size of the braces, and the like of that ; they may be a little 
more lenient in others, but as a general proposition I think that 
the steamboat-inspection rules and the laws of the Ignited States 
are a bit more rigid and drastic than the hnvs or regulations of any 
other maritime nation. I say that because in the American service 
there is but littk^ discretion given a surveyor for exemption, the 
laws are rather carefully enacted, the details are definite, and our 
rides and regulations are for the purpose of carrying into effect 
those laws, and in that wa}- we have been rather drastic in some in- 
stances — not drastic, but going fuller into details. There are some 
instances where we are more drastic than Canada, and other places 
where they are a bit more drastic than we are, but as a general 
proposition — I am taking into account the whole scheme of steam- 
boat inspection — I think the laws and the regulations are a bit 
more drastic than the inspection laws of any other maritime nation. 

Mr. Sweet. The difference is not great ? 

Gen. Uhlek. I think not, sir. If I may speak of the Canadian 
rules, you will notice in all of their rules that it is rather a com- 
bination of the best : that is, based upon the board of trade rules and 
the experience of the particular localities in their waters and 
Canadian service. The Canadian law has some of its regulations 
based upon Lloyd's deductions, others again upon the rules of the 
British board of trade, but generally we meet, so far as may be 
possible by our rules, the purpose of the section of law to which 
they refer. 

Mr. Sweet. That answers the question. 

Secretary Redfield. Dr. Smith, have you any questions? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats. have you anything to ask 
Gen. Uhler? 

Mr. Desbarats. I have no questions. The inspection of the hulls 
comes under your department, does it? 

Gen. Uhler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Desbarats. And the steam fishing vessels are inspected the 
siime as other vessels? 

Gen. Uhler. Yes. sir. 



AMEEICAN'-CAIS^ADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEElSrCE. 37 

Mr. Desbarats. Your inspection laws for hulls are very similar 
to those in Canada ? 

Gen. Uhler. I think there is but little difference. Our inspection 
is to determine -whether or Fiot the ship is being maintained in the 
condition that fits her for her work and makes her seaworthy, all 
that sort of thing, having in mind the original construction of the 
ship, so as to note deterioration, to note conditions of rust, loose 
rivets, etc. We examine the hull of every ship very thoroughly and 
also the double-bottoms. We go in the double-bottoms and examine 
her frame, her floors, her intercostals, etc.. and then come out and 
examine the vertical members, particular attention being giA'en to 
tank tops and such parts of the hull as are subject to extraordinary 
stress, noting particularly the condition of deterioration from origi- 
nal form. 

Secretary Eedeield. What is your rule for reinspection. General? 

Gen. Uhler. The law requires that every vessel shall be inspected 
annually. In addition to that it is a department regulation that 
every vessel carrying passengers shall be reinspected at least three 
times during the jDeriod of her service, so that if the passenger vessel 
is in service for three months only she is reinspected three times to 
determine Avhether or not the equipment as required and Avhich was 
on board at the time of the annual inspection of the vessel is being 
maintained in good shape. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That would not apply to fishing vessels? 

Gen. Uhler. That onl}^ applies to passenger vessels. Freight ves- 
sels are subject only to additional inspection at the discretion of the 
inspector. He is authorized to go aboard at any time and note 
conditions. 

Secretary Redfield. I think, while we are on that subject, our 
recent development of traveling inspectors might be interesting to 
you, Mr. Desbarats and Mr. Found, the provision of traveling offi- 
cers, who are not in any way local inspectors, but who are to see how 
ships behave while they are in use. You have two now. have you not. 
General ? 

Gen. Uhler. We have two now ; yes, sir; one on the Atlantic and 
one on the Pacific, who go aboard a number of vessels at any time 
or at any place and note conditions and report discrepancies or any 
unusual condition to the bureau. 

Mr. Found. Sta}^ on it for a voj^age? 

Gen. Uhler. No ; not as yet. We haven't found it necessary. 

Secretary Redfield. Yon mean for a transocean voyage ; they stay 
on for a trip ? 

Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes. 

Chief Justice Hazex. From Baltimore to New York? 

Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes; we have done that quite often. Now, he 
reports his findings to the bureau. We immediately send to the local 
inspectors who have inspected that vessel the report of the traveling 
inspector and call attention to these discrepancies or omissions as he 
thinks important and ask them why. They report back in nine cases 
out of ten — nineteen cases out of twenty— that it was in good condi- 
tion when they were there ; there were no omissions in the equipment ; 
and if it was not there now, it was because it had been misplaced 
from the time of their last inspection. 



38 AMEEICAK -CANADIAN FISHKHIES CONFKKEXCE. 

Secretary Kedfjkld. (xeiieral, are you familiar with the (Question 
of accident insurance, as relates to the tishernien. at all!' 

Gen. UriLEK. I am not ; I have no kno\vledge of it ar all. 

Secretary Eedeieij). That is a very important thing. 

Gen. I'^hleh. That's a matter, I think, of the Governments in con- 
nection Avith the operation of the fisheries. I don't know whether 
this same condition applies to the Canadian laws or not, but in our 
law reference to '" the fislieries," and, in fact, in section -1:131, where 
it refers to American vessels engaged in fishing. '* the fisheries " as 
contemplated by the law refer only to the three fisheries — the whale, 
the cod, and the mackerel. Those are '' the fisheries " that are recog- 
nized by the law in the determination of questions coming under 
such conditions as refer to the fisheries. 

Ghief Justice Hazex. So tliat when you speak in that act of fish- 
ing vessels, you only mean \essels that catch whale or cod or 
uuickerel { 

Gen. Uhlek. \o: but in the recent law it refers to fishing vessels 
which is governed by the enrollment of a vessel. For instance, Avhen 
a vessel is enrolled to engage in "the fisheries." she engages in the 
whale, mackerel or cod : I think that is correct. 

Dr. SirrrH. It is a rather unfortunate limitation, too. because in 
some statistics which Avere published a feAv years ago we had uuick- 
erel and cod vessels fishing out of Alabama. 

(tcu. UiiLER. That's a fact. I only mention that as incidental to 
the Avhole scheme of fishing, but here we refer not to the vessels of 
the fisheries. Mr. Ghief Justice, but to fishing vessels. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Chaii'man, it Avould appear from the 
very interesting evidence that Gen. Uhler has given us that there is 
comparatively little dilterence in the stringency of the inspection in 
Canada and the Vnited States, but if it was thought necessary to 
pursue the matter further, we could bring before us the chairman of 
the Canadian board and he could give more accurate information 
than we can furnish here to-day. 

Secretary Eedfteld. It has only this advantage to my mind that it 
corroborates and makes absolutely beyond all question the fact, and 
I think it might perhaps on that ground be Avell to do so. The thing 
could never be cjuestioned any more if the chief of service in each 
country had made it perfectly plain. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Having in mind the point that has been sug- 
gested here in regard to the American fishing vessels registering in 
Canada, it would appear, from the statements, that it is far more 
difficult for the American vessels to get registered in Canada than it 
is for Canadian vessels to register here. 

Secretary Kedfield. She doesn't get as high a rating apparently. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. 

Secretary Reuftelo. I think Ave can discuss that Avhen Ave get to 
Boston and see Avhether that is deemed necessary. ^Nly OAvn feeling 
about matters of that kind is that one can hardly know too much, 
and that in some unexpected Avay occasionally you get light Avhere 
you didn't at all expect it. Noav. for instance, I think this morn- 
ing a Aery clear example of that came \ip in the dcAelopment of 
that old smuggling law out of Ketchikan. It came up in an miex- 
pected Avay. but it is a very fertile sidelight on the situation. So that 
so far as feasible. Avithout great inconvenience, if it is possible to 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 39 

have your technicji] service aid in the inquiry, I think it is de- 
sirable. 

(Adjournment till 10.30 a. in. following day.) 



Tuesday. Janiary 22, 1918. 

The meeting was called to order at 10.30 by Secretary Redfield. 

Secretary Redfield. I think perhaps at this point it is pertinent 
to read the telegrams, which I didn't know had been sent, but which 
Mr. Chamberlain handed to me this morning. 

(Telegrams read. See Exhibit I, p. 371.) 

I think perhaps at this point it is pertinent to read the telegrams, 
which I didn't know had been sent. l)ut which Mr. Chamberlain 
handed to me this morning. 

(Telegrams read. See Exhibit I.) 

Mr. Found. I'd like to confirm the information on which I am 
acting. I have the record with me at the hotel, giving me the state- 
ment from the president or manager of the Canadian fishing com- 
])any of his vessel's going to Washington State ports getting bait and 
going direct to the fishing grounds. I feel quite confident that that 
is done. 

Secretary Redfield. I think, Mr. Found, that it would be very de- 
sirable if that letter could be made a portion of our record, if you 
have no objection to it, right at this point. 

Mr. Found. I haven't got it with me, but I shall look it up before 
the next meeting. 

Secretary Redfield. I wish you would, becanse I think we might 
just as well gather that subject into one place and clear it up — 
straighten it out. 

Mr, Foi^ND. I think so. And if the information is not as clear and 
precise as I think it is, then I shall get it clear and place it before 
the conference before Ave are through with it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It is perfectly clear they go to the fishing- 
grounds direct fi'om Ketchikan. 

Mr. Sweet. Then they come into the Canadian port after they 
catch their fish. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Found and I have worked over a resolution which 
is intejided to express our view as to the protection of the sturgeon. 

(Resolution prepared by Mr. Found and Dr. Smith read by Mr. 
Robertson. It follows:) 

Whereas the sturgeons are iiulivithially by far the most valuable tishes inhabit- 
ing North America. 
Whereas the supply of stiu-geons in all waters in which the fishery has been 
active has been so materially reduced as to presage commercial extinction, 
which, in tact, has already occurred in certain waters. 
Whereas it is evident that the measures heretofore adopted are entirely inade- 
quate to arrest the rapid decline of the fisheries or even maintain the present 
greatly diminished supply : Therefore be it 

Resolved. That this conference regards it as necessary that all sturgeon 
fishing in all the contiguous waters of the United States and Canada be sus- 
pended for a period of at least tive years, and that each country should under- 
take to carry this purpose into effect by appropriate legislation or other othcial 
action. 

Resolved further. That this conference sti'ongly reeonnnends the adoption 
by the appropi-iate legislative bodies <)f a similar prohibitory measure for non- 
contiguous waters. 



40 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAlS! FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

(There was an informal discussion relative to the resolution at 
tliis point.) 

Secretary Redfield. Are you ready for action upon the resolu- 
tion ? As many as favor the adoption of the resolution will signifj'^ 
by saying " aye '° : those opposed, " no.'' The resolution is unani- 
mously adopted. 

Was there any fiirther action on the part of the committee? 

Dr. Smith. We are not ready to report on the other matter that 
was referred to us. I Avould like to inquire whether Mr. Quigley is 
ready to report his draft of bill covering the lobster traffic on the 
Canadian coast. 

(There was an informal discussion at this time relative to the 
provisions to be incorporated in draft to be submitted by Mr. 
Quigley pertaining to the lobster traffic on the Canadian coast.) 

Secretary Redfield. Then the conference so understands the mat- 
ter is referred to Mr. Quigley for drafting in that way. If there is 
no further business, I suggest an adjournmei:it. 

(Adjournment till 10.30 a. m. day following.) 



Wedisesday, January 23, 1^18. 

Mr. E. T. Chamberlain. Conmiissioner of Navigation, and Mr. 
Henry M. Loom is, of the United States Food Administration, ap- 
peared before the conference at the Department of Commerce, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The meetino' was called to order at 10.30 a. m. bv Secretarv Red- 
field. 

It would appear from the minutes that there is an item of un- 
finished business in respect to the letter to Judge Alexander and 
Senator Fletcher. Will you read what you have received? 

Mr. DwiGHT. Mr. Secretary, I have to report that I wrote Judge 
x4.1exander and Senator Fletcher, and I have received a letter from 
Judge Alexander as follows. [Letter from Judge Alexander read.] 
No letter has come in as yet from Senator Fletcher. 

Secretary Redfield. There is another item of unfinished business 
arising from the minutes. Mr. Quigley. have you the bill that was 
spoken of therein? 

Mr. Quigley. Yes, sir. 

(Copies of draft of bill distributed.) 

Secretary Redfield. I would suggest, Mr. Quigley, that you read 
the bill yourself, so that we may follow it through with care. 

Mr. Quigley. I might say. Mr. Secretary, before reading it. that 
I have made a change in the first provision, also a change in the 
fourth section. The change in the first provision concerned the 
violation of the act by persons who offer for sale, or have in their 
possession any lobsters unlawfully imported or landed in the United 
States. There may be persons, innocently coming into possession of 
such lobsters, who ought not to be subject to the iDcnalty prescribed, 
and so I have inserted the words "knowing the same to have been 
imported or brought into or landed in the United States in viola- 
tion of the act," which follows the language of other penal statutes 
of a like character forbidding the importation of certain articles. 
In the fourth section, I have included a provision giving the right 
to make searches which I did not have in the original draft. 



AMERICAN-CAITADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 41 

Secretary Eedfield. That's a good idea. 

(Draft of bill pertaining to lobster fishing read by Mr. Quigley.) 
Secretary Redfield. Any comments? 
Discussion relative to the features of the proposed bill. 
Mr. Quigley. I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, in order to save a 
little time, that Dr. Smith, Mr. Found, the fish experts of the con- 
ference, and myself get together and adopt language that will cover 
the points discussed. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I thinlv that is a good suggestion. 
Secretarv Redfield. The suggestion is made that the bill be re- 
ferred for' further consideration to a committee consisting of Mr. 
Found, Dr. Smith, and Mr. Quigley; if there is no objection, this will 
be considered the act of the conference. Is there objection? The 
Chair hears none. 

jMr. Desbarats. Mr. Chairman, in considering the draft ot the 
bill, this committee might take into consideration the diflficulty of 
obtaining evidence to prove that these lobsters were caught within 
whatever area is defined. If a ship comes in to an American port 
and the lobsters are seized, would it then be necessary to prove that 
those lobsters were caught within the prohibited area ? 

Secretary Redfield. I think the obligation Avould be on us to pro- 
vide them "with the evidence. I think our fishing patrol vessels will 
have to have instiaictions to look out for this. 

Mr. Found. I have no fear at all, if we get this law, they will not 
try it. There are very few companies that are doing this, and if we 
could follow them into Boston Harbor and then provide the evi- 
dence, they wouldn't do it. 

Mr. Quigley. Mr. Secretary, May I ask whether the bill m every 
other particular meets with approval ? 

Secretary Redfield. Before this action is taken, which is not yet 
taken, in appointing this committee, your idea is to know if there are 
any further matters which should be brought to its attention? 
Mr. Quigley. Or anything further in connection with the bill. 
Secretary Redfield. Have you any other suggestion, Mr. Chief 
Justice ? « 

Chief Justice Hazen. No. 

Secretary Redfield. I think you might consider the suggestion 
made by Mr. Sweet as to whether it needs revision in regard to the 
penaltv. 

With the understanding that the two matters brought up will 
be considered by the committee and any others that may occur to 
them, is there objection to the proposal?' The Chair hears no objec- 
tion. It is unanimously agreed that the matter shall be referred to 
the aforesaid committee to report at their earliest convenience. 

(At this point Secretary Redfield read telegrams exchanged be- 
tween Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, and the 
collector of customs at Seattle and Ketchikan respecting the grant- 
ing of clearances to foreign vessels for the high seas. See Ex- 
hibit I, p. 371.) 

Mr. Found. In the light of the subsequent telegrams, I may 
have placed a wrong interpretation on this telegram, though I think 
when I read it, you will agree with me that my interpretation, in 
the light of the information I had, was right. In August, 1916, 
when Sir Joseph Pope and myself were here in connection with the 



42 AMEElCAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

Chamberlain bill that was then up, a somewhat similar question 
came up and I sent this telegram to our chief inspector of Fish- 
eries for British Columbia, F. H. Cunningham. This was dated 
August 28, 1916. 

(Telegram to Mr. Cunningham and reply thereto by telegram 
read. See Exhibit J. p. 872.) 

Mr. Found. From that latter portion, I assumed, knowing what 
was being done in Ketchikan, that clearly what they did Avas that 
as it was more convenient and more economical for a Canadian 
vessel to go to an American port than to import bait, that it went 
to the American port and got bait and then went to the high seas- 
Now, in the light of that telegram, I can quite see that that need not 
be the case; that she might go to one of these places and clear back 
to Vancouver or to any of these places that would be on her way 
to the fishing grounds. 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COMMISSIONER OF 

NAVIGATION. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is there any law, Mr. Chamberlain, which 
requires a vessel that clears from an American port or Canadian 
port to proceed directly to the port it is to go to? For instance, to 
put an extreme case, a vessel would clear, we will say, from Boston 
for Halifax; is there anvthing to prevent that vessel from running- 
over to the coast of Ireland, then coming back to Halifax? 

Mr. Chamberlain. No; there is not; that would be an evasive 
clearance. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, if it could run over to the coast of 
Ireland, would there be anything to prevent it from catching a 
cargo of fish and coming back? 

Mr. Chamberlain. As you see. that's a question ; that's wh}' I was 
a little careful ; I started to say that was a "" fraudulent clearance," 
and I said it was an " evasive clearance,'' and I am not entirely 
sure just how a court would rule on a matter of that kind. We might 
impose a penalty, but then it would be contested, and we might be 
wrong; such things have happened. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What would there be to prevent that vessel 
halfway across to Halifax from anchoring and catching fish and then 
going on to Halifax, presuming that you could catch fish there? 

Secretary Redfield. What right has any country, the vessel hav- 
ing cleared under the law" with intent to make the port of destination, 
to say what that vessel shall do upon the high seas enroute ? 

Mr. Chamberlain. There are considerable questions there, of 
course. 

Secretary Eedfield. You get at the root of the thing right there. 
it seems. 

Mr. Desbarats. When a vessel comes into port, does she not have to 
produce a manifest showing that that is really where she is coming 
from with that cargo ? 

Mr. Chamberlain. You are quite right about that, but in a case 
such as we have under consideration, would there be any cargo? 
Wouldn't it be a ship going in ballast, I would say? If she was a 
fishing vessel, she probably would be clearing just with her supplies, 
you know. Her manifest would be a blank, would be a purely formal 
matter, just clearing with her stores: and if she did happen to take 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 43 

cargo for Halifax or foi- the Canadian port. I presume she woukl 
deliver that. 

Secretary Eedfield. It will be a very interesting question when we 
get to Boston to ask our friend, the collector of customs. 

Mr. Chamberlain. That's the law, I take it, under which the 
Ketchikan collector has been acting, section 3109, Eevised Statutes. 

(Section 3109 read by Mr. Chamberlain. See Exhibit K, p. 3T2.) 

Mr. Chambeklain. Noav, that was modified by the act creating this 
department of February, 1903. And it is under that, act, although 
its applicability to fishing vessels is far from being clear, as it ap- 
pears from the other language of the act. that the Ketchikan col- 
lector has been acting in these cases, and I only recollect, which I 
could doubtless verify from the files, that at the time that act of 1898 
was passed, there was no end of whisky smuggling on the Alaskan 
coast, both for the Indians and the white men, who, I think, had their 
share, too, and the instructions were very rigid to prevent that sort 
of thing going on, and the practice doubtless arose at that time of 
applying this to everything that came in. 

There" was a repeal by article 1 of the treaty of 1909 with Great 
Britain. 

Secretary Redfield. The whole act? 

Mr. Chamberlain. The whole act. 

Secretary Redfield. What was repealed? 

Mr. Chamberlain. I will have to look that up in the treaty, Mr. 
Secretary ; I haven't it right in my mind. 

Secretary Redfield. It seems to me that on the face of it the col- 
lector at Ketchikan was acting under an act which had been re- 
pealed by a treaty. 

Mr. CHAMBERLAiiSr. I think so. too, but I want to verify that. 

Secretary Redfield. Can you do that? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes ; when I go upstairs. 

Secretary Redfield. We shall defer consideration of this matter 
then until Mr. Chamberlain returns. 

STATEMENT BY ME. H. M. LOOMIS, OF THE FOOD ADMINIS- 
TRATION. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Loomis, of the Food 
Administration, is present, and, in order not to detain him, I ask 
that he will kindly step forward and take this chair. 

I have asked you, Mr. Loomis, to be present, representing the Food 
Administration, because in considering the very important subject 
of the mutual relations of the Dominion of Canada and the United 
States on this important fishery question, one of the phases upon 
which opinion in both countries is alert and interested is the question 
of food supply. The questions we shall have to discuss take a new 
angle of vision from the facts which are alleged to exist concerning 
the food supply not only of this country and the Dominion of 
Canada, but of the countries which are more or less dependent upon 
us for their food supplies, and I'd be very glad to have you make 
to the conference any suggestions as to what the situation is that we 
may have before us in an official way, those facts in order that we 
may put proper weight upon them. Will you tell us, therefore, wdiat 
the general food situation is, and especially whether you are making 
any effort to develop the fish supply or anything of that kind? 



44 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE.' 

Mr. LooMis. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to say in opening that I have 
not come here at the advice of or after consulting Mr. Hoover; I 
have come solely on my own initiative, and I therefore do not want 
anything I may say to be taken as given by an official representing 
the Food Administration. 

I have already told you Mr. Fowler is handling the fresh-fish 
division over at the Food Administration, and he has been there 
ever since, I think, the Food Administration started, and I am rather 
a novice at it, having just got there about the latter part of Decem- 
ber. I think Mr. Fowler Avill be here before 12 o'clock, and I think 
it will be very nice if he can say something. I think these gentle- 
men are probably familiar with the very great shortage in the meat 
supply and the great demand for something to take its place in 
the menu and at the tables of the consuming public. You are all 
more or less familiar with the shortage in the meat supply. There 
is a great reduction in the number of cattle in this country. There 
is the diminishing of cattle on the ranges, the cutting off of the 
supply of meat to a large extent from Argentina hj the war, and 
therefore it appears very necessary for us to look around for some 
source of protein, which is the essential food constituent of meat, to 
take the place. 

It is very important that a great deal of our meat should be sent 
over to the' nations who are allied with us in the war. That largely 
restricts us to products like poultry, eggs, and fish ; that is, leaving 
out of consideration the leguminous foods, like beans and peas. I 
think the ordinary consumer desires and requires something related 
to meat, flesh, and there is nothing that can be more extensively de- 
veloped, I think, to take the place of meat, than the fish industry. 
Therefore, I feel that it is a very important thing that anything that 
can be done to develop that industry should be done, particularly at 
this time. 

Speaking for the canned-fish industry, the catch or output for this 
last season on the Maine sardines amounted to about 2,250,000 cases. 
In the case of salmon I believe the pack was about 8,500,000 cases; 
that would amount to about 425,000,000 pounds of salmon. I be- 
lieve that that pack has already been taken up and there is not near 
enough supply to meet the demand. 

I don't know that there is anything further I can say, Mr. Sec- 
retary. 

Secretary Redfield. I think that puts the facts in very brief com- 
pass. Mr.' Chief Justice, are there any questions you would like to 
ask of Mr. Loomis? 

Chief Justice Hazen. This market, I suppose, for fresh fish and 
canned fish can be increased to a very great extent, if you could get 
the fish to sell? 

Mr. LooMis. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats, have you any questions? 

Mr. Desbarats. How does the matter stand now as to the relatioi 
between the supply of fish available and the demand which exists? 

Mr. LooMis. As I say, my familiarity is only with the canned fish 
industry, and I know that the supply of salmon available — canned 
salmon — is very short of the demand, although there has been a very 
large pack this year, one of the largest; with one exception. I think 
it is the largest pack of salmon ever had. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 45 

Secretary Redfield. Do I get correctly from you, Mr. Loomis, the 
impression that you regard the supply of camied fish, and in so far 
as you are aware of fresh fish as unequal to the existing demand? 

Mr. LooMis. As far as canned fish is concerned, it is unequal to 
the demand. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know what the dut}'- is on canned 
fish coming into the United States? Take sardines, for instance; 
they are put up on the Canadian side. Do you know what duty they 
would have to pay in order to send their product into the United 
States '? 

Mr. LooMis. I wouldn't be certain of that ; I should have it at my 
fingers' ends, but I think it is something like a quarter of a cent a 
can and ad valorem. I wouldn't want to say that that is correct, 
though. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know that that is correct ? 

Mr. LooMis. No, sir. I do know there is an ad valorem duty, but 
I don't know just how much it amounts to. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, the sardines that are put up on the 
coast of Maine are caught in Canadian waters chiefly, are they not ? 

Mr. Loomis. I should say TO per cent of the fish are caught in 
Canadian waters. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, the fish are admitted free into the 
United States? 

Mr. LooMis. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. But when it comes to the question of fisli 
that are canned in Canada, there is a dutj^? 

Mr. LooMis. I believe so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. On the cans and on the value of the prod- 
ucts? 

jVli'. LooMis. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Smith. I would like to say, Mr. Secretary, that Mr. Loomis 
has been particularly identified with the canned-fish business, and 
especially on the coast of Maine in connection with the sardine indus- 
try, where he has instituted a system of inspection which has resulted 
in great good to the industry. Up to the time Mr. Loomis went in 
there avps no inspection, no coorclination or standardization of the 
pack of Maine sardines; since then the industry has taken on a new 
life, and Mr, Loomis is largely responsible for it. 

Secretary Redfield. I think, Mr. Loomis, we didn't get your name 
in full. 

Mr. LooMis. Henry M. Loomis. 

Secretary Redfield. And .do you hold any official position in con- 
nection with the Maine fisheries? 

Mr. Loomis. I am now connected outside of the Food Administra- 
tion with the National Canners' Association as director of sardine 
inspection, and during this winter I have volunteered for work in 
the Food Administration, while the season is closed up there in 
Maine. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Found, any questions? 

Mr. Found. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr, Sweet? 

Mr. Sweet. I have no questions. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Loomis. Will 
Mr. Fowler be here? 

Mr. LooMis. He said he would be here later on. 



46 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN— Continued. 

Secretary Eedfield. Resume, Mr. Chamberhiin. 

Mr. Cha3iberlain. The section that I just read, section 3109, j^ou 
will recall, began, " The uuister of any foreign vessel, etc." It is 
applicable to foreign ships; it is not applicable to American ships. 

Now, the first article of that treaty of 1909 to which I referred, 
the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating 
to boundary waters between the United States and Canada, signed 
at Washington, January 11, 1909, reads: 

(First article of treaty read by Mr. Chamberlain. See Exhibit L, 
p. 372.) ■ ■ . . \ 

Mr. Chamberl.\in. Now, so far as British ships covered by the 
treaty are concerned, thei'e is an evident conflict between the two. 
It is possible that in that footnote to the navigation laws — and that 
book, of course, is rather a popular book for the convenience of ship 
captains more than anything else — -that treaty might be regarded as 
not a self-executing treaty. We have two kinds of treaties, as you 
laiow, self-executing and those that require legislation to give them 
effect, and I don't know how the State Department would regard 
that; that is a matter for them to determine, but there is a palpable 
conflict there. 

Secretary Eedfield. It appears to be the fact that the collector at 
Ketchikan is requiring Canadian vessels to do under this law that 
which a subsequent treaty pro>ides they shall not be obliged to do. 

Mr. Cha:mbeklain. T^nleas it is done to our ships. 

Secretary Redfield. Now. the question arises. What form does the 
requirement take ^ Do you know, Mr. Found ? 

Mr. Found. I am afraid that treaty doesn't apply. You see. the 
preliminary article tiefines what boundary waters are. 

(Preliminary article read bv Mr. Found. See Exhibit M, p. 
373.) 

]Mr. Found. 1 noticed that footnote, but I knew this treaty, and 
that we had not ground for claiming that that treaty abrogated this 
provision so far as Alaskan waters are concerned. 

Secretary Redfieed. These particular watei-s are not covered by the 
treaty. 

Mr. Found. I am afraid not, sir. These are the Lake waters and 
all the waters contiguous to the Lakes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you mean to say it doesn't cover waters 
along the coast i 

Mv. Found. For the purposes of this treaty, boundary waters are 
defined as : 

(Article read by Mr. For.nd. See Exhibit M.) 

Secretary Redfield. Expressly excludes the ocean. 

Mr. Found. In set terms it doesn't apply to the ocean. 

Secretary Redfield, So the old law stands. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. So, then, you have got a condition? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Except in so far as the footnote applies to the 
Great Lakes, as well as to Alaska. It is not applicable to this situ- 
ation. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. So, inasmuch as the treaty does not 
apply, that old law stands? 



AMEBICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 47 

(Mr. Quig'ley read from the United States Compiled Statutes. 1916, 
vol. VI, p. 6884, referring to Revised Statute, sec. 3109, as amended 
Pebruarv, 1898, entitled " Report by Masters of Foreign Vessels." 
See Exhibit N, p. 373.) 

Mr. QuiGLET. From the statement contained in this volume, it 
would appear that section 3109 as amended by the act of 1898 is still 
in force? 

Mr. Cpiamberlaix. Yes. 

Mr. Found. That's the section you are reading? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. There seems to be no doubt this law is still in 
force. 

Mr. Chamberlain. So far as this question is concerned, yes. 

Secretary Redfield. That merely gets upon the record that the 
latest official publication shows that law is still in force. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And it applies to the northern, northeast- 
ern, and northwestern frontiers: it wouldn't apply to the Atlantic? 

Secretary Redfield. It, therefore, seems to be the case that the 
law requires the collector at Ketchikan to do that Avhich the col- 
lector at Boston is not permitted to do. I am sure we will have a 
very interesting session with the collector of customs at Boston. 
Mr. Billings. 

Dr. Smith, have you ever heard, or has it been brought to your 
knowledge or to your observation in any way, any complaint on 
the part of American fishing vessels that this procedure took place 
in Alaska, or any complaint on the part of Canadian fishing ves- 
sels that they were obligated in this way? 

Dr. Smith. I have never heard any complaint on either of those 
points. 

Secretary Redfield. Has any suggestion been made to your knowl- 
edge that the procedure here involved either worked injury to the 
American fishing vessels or was either an advantage or the reverse 
to the Canadians? 

Dr. S^riTii. I have heard no comment on it. 

Secretary Redfield. In other words, so far as you know, this thing- 
has proceeded at Ketchikan without arousing antagonism, so far as 
you know ? 

Dr. Smith. Or any special comment. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your vieAvpoint. Mr. Found? 

Mr. Found. My experience is in accord with that of Dr. Smith; 
I may only add that, while I have thought of it a great many times 
and have discussed it in the department, we have always felt that, as 
the law required American vessels to do that which the Canadian 
vessels were obliged to do, we had no ground for raising any question. 

Secretary Redfield. All questions are treated alike there, but in 
substance it is the fact, it is the existing practice to give a formal 
clearance, whatever it be, which does permit and has for a long time 
permitted a Canadian vessel to take the clearance from an American 
port imder which she does, in substance, go without complaint and 
question direct to the fishing grounds ; that "s so, isn't it ? 

Mr. Found. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. And that custom has gone on. although 
known, for a great many years, hasn't it? 

Mr. Found. Yes. 



48 AMERICAN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFERENCE, 

Dr. Sr.iiTii. And an additional inteiesting fact about this sub- 
ject, Mr. Secretary, is that these clearances have been given in many 
cases immediately after the Canadian vessels have taken on bait. 

Secretary Redfip^ld. Oh, yes. 

Dr. Smith. The obvious purpose of the clearance is shown. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The collector knew that they were fishing. 

Secretary Redfielo. Now, then, let's get another fact, for I think 
we are unfolding things here that are of great value. What is the 
relative importai ce in weight of catch of the Pacific fisheries cov- 
ered by this matter and of the Atlantic fisheries? 

Mr. P'ouND. Halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast are now down 
pretty low; they amount to about -t'2,000,00() pounds, speaking from 
recollection — that is what they amounted to last year. In money 
value that Avould be a good deal higher than the same thing on the 
Atlantic coast. Even at the prices that prevailed last year, 3^ cents — 
that's what the fisherman got ; they would cost a good deal more 
than that — that's hardly a fair basis. 

Secretary Redfield. The thought is really to get the relative idea — 
if it is twice, three, four, (u- five times — whatever it is. 

Dr. Smith. It is fifteen to twenty times the halibut catch on the 
Atlantic. 

Secretary Redfield. Let us say that we agree, for a general state- 
ment, that the halibut catch of the Pacific is many times that of the 
Atlantic ? 

Mr. Found. Oh, yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Xow. are there any other fisheries there other 
than the halibut which are involved in this question ; and if so, what 
relation would those bear? 

Chief Justice Hazen. I think, jNIr. P^ound, if you would take our 
fisheries statistics and show what the value of the fisheries in British 
Columbia and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is that that would 
give the information pretty well. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Mr. Found. In British Columbia, salmon fishing is the biggest. 

Secretary Redfield. That isn't concerned. You see here very 
plainly the thing I am striving at. If it shall appear, for example, 
that the thing has gone on harmoniously and effectively, then the 
plea that this must not be done has snsall weight. That is so obvi- 
ous that we ought to get this established in such a way — let us as- 
sume that a Gloucester or a Boston man objects strenuously to this 
thing; if we can then show that this fellow on a very much larger 
scale is not only not suffering but may be actually prospering under 
this thing, why. where does Mr. (xloucester num '' get off," to use a 
familiar phrase? 

Mr. Found. Plalibut landed in British Columbia last year would 
come to considerably over $2,000,000 in value. Those landed by 
American fishing vessels that were shipped in bond and those landed 
by Canadian fishing vessels which were sold would be about — well, 
I'd have to consider that. 

Secretary Redfield. Wouldn't it be well to put upon the record the 
request to you and Dr. Smith to submit to the conference a compara- 
tive statement at your convenience which would show the relative 
value of the fisheries affected by this procedure, the actual pro- 
cedure upon the Pacific coast and the proposed procedure upon the 



AMERICAN-CANADIAF FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 49 

Atlantic coast, both as to number of vessels and persons involved, 
pounds of catch, and value of catch ? Then we'd know what we are 
talking about. Is that acceptable to you. Mr. Chief Justice? 

Chief Justice Hazex. I think fhat would be very valuable. 

Secretary Redfield. With that understandino-. >ve will let that 
matter rest. 

Mr. Chamberlain has placed in my hands a list, Mr. Chief Justice, 
of fishing vessels sohl to aliens during the calendar years 1914, 1915, 
and 1916, which gives details as to the rate, name of vessel, gross ton- 
nage, port froui which last documented, foreign flag, to Avhich place 
transferred, and date of sale within a fixed quarter. (See Exhibit O, 
page 873.) I suggest that, if you approve, this be made a por- 
tion of the official record in the case, subject to such discussion and 
corrections as we may see fit. I would suggest that Mr. Desbarats, 
from your own record, procure a kindred statement, in order that 
we may compare the two carefully. 

Chief Justice Hazen. These are not all necessarily fishing vessels, 
are they. Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. CiiAMBEKLAix. tender fishing licenses at the time they were 
sold. 

Secretary Eedfield. I assume that it would be quite possible to 
give definite explanation of a number of these. 

Mr. Found. We are anxious to get these so that we can folloAv 
them. The feeling is that very few of these have gone into fishing in 
Canada. 

Mr. Chambei^laix. We have no record of that, of course. 

Chief Justice Hazex. We may be able to supply records showing 
what business these vessels have gone into. 

Secretary Eedfield. I think it is quite important that that be 
done, because, in the absence of the other half of this, it is apt to 
be used mistakenly. 

Then we understand that this statement (see Exhibit O) is made 
a portion of the record for further discussion and information. 

Mr. Found. When we get to Boston we can take up the matter of 
what they have gone into. 

Secretary Eedfield. Xow, Mr. Chamberlain. I think v\e may ex- 
cuse you. 

Mr. Chamberlain. Before that, however, I'd like to make just one 
statement supplementary to what I said, namely, that I couldn't recall 
whether that treaty was self-executing or not. The Attorney General 
has ruled that it is self-executing. Another thing: Chief Justice 
Hazen inquired as to the northern, northeastern, and northwestern 
frontiers. In our statutes that always applies to the Great Lakes. 
It is applicable to the Great Lakes; but you will notice that this 
statute that we are talking of was specifically — in 1898 — made appli- 
cable to Alaska. It Avouldn't have applied to Alaska under the de- 
scription of northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers. 

Secretary Eedfield. Does it apply to an,ything in the Atlantic? 

Mr. Chamberlain. Nothing in the Atlantic. It Avas made appli- 
cable by a particular act to Alaska ; but in all statutes where that 
designation is used it applies to the Great Lakes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, a vessel passing through your terri- 
torial water along the coast of Maine and Massachusetts wouldn't 
.51950—18 4 



50 AMERICAX-CANADIAX FISUEUIF.S CONFERENCE. 

have to ivporl in tlu' sanu' way thai these vessels in Ahiska have to 
report to Ketchikan^ 

^Ir. CllAMBKin.AlX. Xo. 

Chief Justice Hazkn. It doesn't in any way inehule the Athmtic 
])orts ^ 

^Ir. C'liA.Mi'.KHLAix. It does not. 

^fr. KoREiJTSON. May I ask a question? I understand .vou to have 
hronoht out from "Slv. Chanibedain that this article of the treaty 
revised the statute, although it says that any freight arriving, 
whether by sea or otherwise, in the waters of the United States from 
any waters of the United States adjacent to the northeastern or 
northwestern frontiers of the United States — that that does not ap- 
ply to the Atlantic coast. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That's what Mr. Chamberlain tells us. 

]Mr. RoBF.irrsoN. I understand you to have brought that out quite 
clearly. 

{Mr. Chamberlain is to look further into this matter and report 
on the particular feature of the statute brought out by Chief Justice 
Hazen and ^Ir. Ixobertson. as to whether it applies only to the 
(ireat Lakes.) 

Secretary Rfdfiki.d. Is there anything, J\lr. Chief Justice, that 
you Avisli particularly to bring before us to-day? 

Chief Justice Hazex. Xot that T have iiersonally: have you any- 
thing Ml'. Found ^ 

Mr. Foi^M). This won't take more than a moment, Mr. Secretary: 
it is that resolution that Dr. Smith and I were directed to draft. 
Shall I read it, sir ? 

Secretary Redfielu. Yes. 

(Eesolution prepared by Dr. Smith and Mr. Found relative to 
halibut fishing read by Mr! Found. See Exhibit P, page 374.) 

]Mr. Foi'NU. Tt is so recommended. 

Dr. SiMFrii. That is very comprehensive. 

Mr. Ftu xn. We thought it was best to giA e the argunu^nt. 

Secretary Eeofield. Very thorough labor. 

The resolution, with its recommendation, is before the conference 
for discussion, if that is desired. INIr. Chief Justice, have you any 
suggestions? 

Chief Justice Hazen. T think the resolution sets forth the argu- 
u)ent in its favor very clearly. 

Mv. Desbahats. I think the resolution is (juite clear. I don't know 
if there is any object of oin- saying Avhat we have been doing already 
in the way of developing this market: that Ave are at the present 
time payinii" the freight or express charges on these particular fish 
from the r'acitic port up to any point west of the eastern boundary 
of Vancouver — that is to say. all the western Provinces, everything 
Avest of Ontario — so as to encourage the sale of these fish: practically 
Avipe out the freight charge, so that the fish can be taken doAvn to the 
various inland points at a very Ioav rate. 

Secretary l\EnFiEi.i). As far" as the Avest border of Manitoba? 

Mr. Desbakats. The eastern boundary. 

Secretary Redfield. T have taken a very keen personal interest 
in this Avork that Dr. Smith and his service have carried on. because 
it lias Wen in its way a very practical example of doing a great Avork 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 51 

with small means, and a happy union of the scientific and the 
practical. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Before we separate to-day, Mr. Secretary, I 
was going to suggest that I think it would be very desirable from 
many standpoints, and we'd appreciate it very much in Cansida, and 
I think it Avould tend to the promotion of good relations, if, before 
we are through with this conference, we could haA^e a meeting at the 
city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Such a meeting miglit take 
place after we returned from the Pacific coast. We could go there 
early in March. The Parliament of Canada will be in session at that 
time, and I know the pople of Ottawa tnid the members of the Gov- 
ernment would be onlv too delighted to have the pleasure of meeting 
the American members of this conference; and the fact that we held 
a meeting in Ottawa, I think, would have a very good influence. I 
therefore throw out the idea for your consideration, Mr. Secretary, 
and we hope it will be possible for you to consider it favorably. _ 

Secretary Redfield. We should certainly be very much gratified to 
accept it : if the opportunity is afforded, it would be a great delight. 

(Adjournment till 10.30 a. m. of the following day.) 



Till RSDAv MoRNiNo, Jdiiuary 2^, 1918. 
Hon. J. AV. Alexander, chairman of the Committee on Merchant 
Marino and Fisheries, of the House of Eepresentatives, appeared 
before the conference at the Department of Commerce, Washmg- 

fhe meeting was called to order at 10.30 o'clock. Chief Justice 
Hazen, of Canada, presiding in the absence of Secretary Redfield. 

STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We have the pleasure of seeing Judge 
Alexander here this morning. Perhaps it would be well for me to 
just briefly state to Judge Alexander what the conference has been 
doing and the purpose of it. . i • i 

The judge, of course, is aware that under the treaty of 1818. which 
is the only treaty in effect to-day with regard to fisheries, that Ameri- 
can fishing vessels are permitted to come into Canadian ports for four 
purposes— for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. 

Negotiations took place for a treaty in 1888; the terms of the treaty 
were agreed to between the commissioners. However, that treaty was 
not ratified bv Congress. That treaty provided that in exchange 
for the free admission of Canadian fish into the ITnited States, that 
American fishing vessels should be given very much extended privi- 
leges in the ports and waters of Canada. Pending the consideration 
of that treaty bv Congress, a modus vivendi was entered into under 
an act passed by Canada, under Avhich the (xoyernment of Canada 
issued licenses to American fishing vessels which enabled them to 
come into our ports for many other purposes — to buy bait, tranship 
their fish, to ship crews, and practically gave them the same privi- 
leges in our ports that the Canadian fislierman retained. 

That was entered into pending the decision of Congress with re- 
gard to the treaty which would give us the free admisison of our fish 



02 AMEKICAX-GANADIAN FISHERIES COXFEREXL'E. 

into the United States in exchaniie for these privileges that we were 
oivinii; American tishernien in onr ports. Tliat treaty was not, how- 
ever, ratified bv the (Jovernnient of the T"rnited States, but we have 
continned year by year for a period now of 30 years, in Canada, to 
])ass an order in conncil extending the privileges granted to the 
American fishermen under that modns vivendi license. For that 
license the American fishermen pays a fee of $1.50 per registered 
ton of the vessel in Avhich he engages in fishing. 

Some time ago it was suggested to the (lovernment of Canada by 
the Government of the United States that, as fish are now adnutted 
free into the markets of the Ignited States under the present tariff, 
the (rovernment of Canada ought to extend the privileges given 
under the modus vivendi. Under that modus vivendi the privileges 
are only given to vessels that are propelled by sails. At the time it 
was originally entered into that was the method by which fishing 
vessels Avere propelled. The United States suggested that, as to-day 
conditions are entirely changed and the fishing vessels are now 
largely propelled by steam or gasoline the modus \ ivendi should be 
extended to vessels of that character. 

In reply to that the (government of Canada pointed out that, while 
under the treaty at ^Washington these privileges Avere to be given, 
although there is now free admission of fish, it is not a permanent 
arrangement but is simply a matter of tariff policy subject to change 
of policy by the administration that is in power for the time being 
in the United States. It Avas also pointed out that, Avhile fish Avere 
admitted free yet our fisherman are not given the advantage of 
that to the full extent, because they are not alloAved to take their 
(.•atches of fish directly into the United States markets from the fish- 
ing grounds, but have first to proceed to a Canadian port and their 
either transfer their fish into a trading vessel or have their fishing- 
vessel taken over and registered as a trading vessel before proceeding 
to a port in the United States : and on the other hand. Avhen its 
cargo has been disposed of in the Ignited States port, this vessel is 
not alloAved clearance for the fishing grounds, but has to clear for a 
Canadian port and thence proceed to the fishing grounds, thus caus- 
ing a very considerable degree of delay. 

There are also questions in connection Avitli the rights of Ignited 
States vessels in Canadian ports on the Pacific coast of a somewhat 
similar character. The question of the protection of the Eraser 
Kiver also arose, and finally the outcome of the commnnieations that 
passed betAveen the tAvo Governments Avas that the Government of 
the United States suggested that a connnission be appointed in 
Canada to meet Avith a connnisison of the United States for the pur- 
pose of considering these nuitters and other outstanding fishery (]ues- 
tions betAveen the tAvo countries. 

One of the questions that Ave called attention to and thought should 
be settled at the same time that these other questions were being- 
settled — if they could be settled, as Ave most earnestly hope and 
believe they can be — Avas Avith regard to protection of the lobster on 
the Atlantic coast : all along the Atlantic coast from NeAv Brunswick 
and Xova Scotia, Ave have certain closed seasons, during Avhich lob- 
sters can not be caught Avithin our territorial Avaters. 

We find. hoAvever. that our efforts to protect the lobster in this 
respect are to some extent interfered Avith. oAvinir to the fact that 



A?.IERTCAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEEEXCE. 53 

dnring the closed season on our coast, vessels described as lobster- 
well smacks, registered in the United States, and belonging to citi- 
zens of the United States, come across and catch lobsters just out- 
side of our territorial waters and put these lobsters into the wells 
that they have in these smacks and carry them back to the American 
market, and if the weather is rough, at night, they go into our ports 
under the provision of the treaty of 1818. which allows them to come 
in there for the purpose of shelter. The result of that, of course, 
is obvious. Our fishermen are not permitted to fish in the terri- 
torial waters, and. in fact, we have prohibited fishing altogether 
during the closed season. You can readily understand the irritation 
it causes them, when they look out of their doors and windows and 
o or -i: miles away see the vessels of the United States catching those 
lobsters, which they are prevented from catching in order to protect 
that industry for the future. 

Those in brief are the questions before the conference. There are 
other questions that have arisen. There is the question about the 
protection of fish in Lake Champlain. It seems to be almost the con- 
verse of the lobster question on our coast, because in Lake Champlain 
the fish seem to resort for spawning purposes to the part of the 
lake which is in Canada, and it seems that we should enforce more 
drastic laws than at present in order to protect the fish in the spawn- 
ing beds, so that they may continue to exist in the lake and be caught 
y>y those citizens of the Ignited States who engage in the business of 
fi-hing. 

There are certain other questions regarding the protection of the 
sturgeon tJiat have come before us for consideration, and. in view 
of all these different matters. I u.iay say that the very first clay we 
met. when we stated the position of affairs about the lobsters. Secre- 
tary Redfield gave instructions to the assistant solicitor of the 
Department of Conmierce. who is here. Mr. Quigley. to have a bill 
]irepared at once for submission to Congress, so as to prevent that 
>tate cf affairs existing any longer: and Secretary Redfield suggested 
th;it it would be a good idea — and we all approved of the sugges- 
tion — if you could come here and give us the benefit of your advice 
regarding these matters, which, we were sure, woidd be very helpful. 
AVe thank you very much, loiowing how busy a man you are. for 
having come here this morning. 

STATEMENT BY HON. J. W. ALEXANDER. CHAIRMAN OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND PISHERIES. 

Judge Alexander. I am chairman of the Committee on Merchant 
^larine and Fisheries, the committee which has jurisdiction of fish- 
eries questions, but only in so far as they relate to our domestic 
waters. The questions like those you are dealing with now. when 
they come before Congi-ess for consideration, would probably be 
referred to the Committee on Foreigii Affairs in the House. I 
think that has been the course of legislation in the ]3ast. I am not 
at all familiar with the conditions on the Atlantic coast, as regards 
our fisheries, and I am only conversant with them to a .limited 
extent in the northwest Pacific. 

In the last Congress the Committee on the Merchant ^larine and 
Fisheries framed a bill to regulate the fisheries of Alaska, but that 



54 AMERICAISr-CAIvrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEISrCE. 

bill has no international aspects. It is intended, of course, to con- 
serve our fisheries from the standpoint of food supplj^ off the Alaskan 
coast, to prevent the waste now prevalent, and to increase the fish; 
and the Bureau of Fisheries, of which Dr. Smith is the commissioner, 
and the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Eedfield, have taken a very 
keen interest in conditions there, and we have had the benefit of their 
expert advice in framing legislation. We will have that question to 
deal with again in this Congress, unless it should go over on account 
of war conditions. But I would think that with our relations so 
intimate and our interests for the most part in common, that if each 
nation would approach the other in a spirit of fairness and square 
dealing that it would be no trouble to get together and frame a con- 
vention that will be fair to both nations and conserve this great 
food suppl}'', because every ^^ear it becomes of greater importance 
from the national viewpoint. 

I am very glad to be here for a few minutes this morning. I 
assure you of my interest in the matters with w^hich you are dealing, 
and I appreciate their imjjortance to both nations. I hope, as a result 
of this joint conference, you may work out a convention that will 
be mutually satisfactory and that will meet the approval of the 
Senate of the United States — it is the censor of all such matters 
finally — and of the Canadian Government. I thank you for the 
privilege of being here. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It appears to be the opinion of the members 
of this conference that there are really two questions, and they ought 
to be kept separate and apart, as far as possible, so as not to confuse 
the issue. One is with regard to the right of American vessels in 
Canadian ports and the right of Canadian vessels in American ports ; 
and our opinion seems to be tending in the direction that that is a 
matter that can be dealt with without a treaty — by legislation. 

Judge Alexander. That question would come to my committee for 
consideration, and I Avill say that all those questions that come to 
the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries will, I think, 
leceive ver}^ careful consideration. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The other question is the one about the pro- 
tection of the Fraser River, which is the breeding ground for a 
great many of the salmon on the Pacific coast, the salmon that is 
known as the socke^^es, especially. Fish in the Fraser River have 
been decreasing from year to year. This in consequence of the 
excessive amount of fishing that takes place. The fish in making 
their way to the Fraser River for the purpose of spawning go up 
through American territorial waters for a very considerable distance 
and in those waters traps are placed with great leaders and jiggers, 
1 think they call them, Mr. Found 

Mr. Found. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). Running out from them. I 
don't know whether you have ever seen them. Judge Alexander, 
or not. 

Dr. SMrrH. He knows Avliat a jigger is from his consideration of 
the pending Alaskan legislation. 

Chief Justice Hazen. From what I sa^^• in 1913 it was a mystery 
to me how the salmon got up the river in any numbers. Then, too, 
the unfortunate salmon that does get as far as the river itself is 
faced with a fleet of 2,500 or 3,000 boats, each boat with a net, and 



AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 55 

these nets drifting criss cross across the river from the estuary right 
lip the river to almost the bridge at New Westminister, and practi- 
cally the only chance that the salmon has of getting to the spawning 
grounds is during the weekly closed season. I thhik it is 12 hours. 
And that is the only opportunity it has of getting up to the spawning- 
beds. 

Well, the result of that is being seen now. The catch in 1917, 
Avhich is the big year (every fourth year is a big year), was very 
much less than the catch in 1913. and there is very great danger of a 
very valuable fishery, which is of great importance to the people of 
both countries, being destroyed, unless some drastic steps are taken 
for its protection. In order to do that the opinion of the conference 
is that it may be necessary to have a treaty instead of doing it by 
legislation, as the fisheries in the State of Washington are under 
the control of the State and in Canada the fisheries are controlled 
by the federal power. It avouIcI be very difficult, but not impossible, 
I think, for the Government of Canada to make an arrangement 
with the State of Washington ; it would have to be done as a national 
matter on national grounds. The idea is that it would have to be the 
subject matter of a treaty. 

Judge Alexander. I think that is true, and as regards Alaska, 
well, Ave Avill have the same problem otf the coast of Alaska. Hereto- 
fore the trap nets haA'e all been so placed that the fish couldn't get 
up to the spaAvning grounds, and one purpose of this legislation is 
to locate them aAvay from the mouth of the streams, so that the fish 
may haA'e free access to the spaAvning grounds. That is one of the 
problems we are trying to solve by legislation. 

Chief Justice Hazex. The object of an agreement Avould be that 
in the Vnited States adequate measures should be taken for the 
protection of those fish on the Avay up to the river ; in Canada 
adequate measures should be taken for the fish to be protected on 
their Ava}" up the river to the spaAvning beds ; and in connection Avith 
that it might be most desirable that in order to replenish the river 
steps should be taken for the establishment of an efficient system of 
fish hatcheries. We are maintaining some fish hatcheries on the 
Fraser River uoav. That Avork might be very much extended, and Ave 
believe it Avould be most desirable, but Avould not be effective unless 
regulations are adopted and enforced to protect the fish on their Avay 
to the spawning beds. The opinion of the conference seems to be 
that the agreement should include protectiA'e measures on both the 
American and Canadian sides. In view of our mutual interest it 
should be a matter of agreement betAveen us, and Avhat we agree to 
should be embodied in a treaty, and the treaty should not simply say 
that we Avill take adequate steps to establish proper fishing methods 
and you to protect the fish on the Avay up the coast, but Ave should 
agree as to what those adequate steps are, so that there can be no 
question about it. 

Judge Alexander. I think that is correct. Xoav. of course, these 
States control the fisheries. Take the shad fish. I think Dr. Smith 
will agree Avith me that off the coasts of Virginia and Maryland theA'' 
extend their nets and other fishing tackle in such a Avay that the shad 
can't get up to the breeding grounds in the streams, and it is result- 
ing in great hurt to the propagation of the shad, and if the GoA'ern- 



56 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

menl could control the matter I think we ought to take steps to have 
that clone rather than leave it for these States. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I presume you mean that the States are too 
close to the fishermen to control the matter. 

Judge Alexander. Political influence seems to control. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, if I may speak at this time, the most 
l)ressing matter for legislati^'e consideration seems to be this lobster 
fishing off the Canadian coast, and I would suggest, if agreeable to 
all of yon, that this bill which has been prepared and has been before 
us several times be submitted to Judge Alexander, with the view to 
ascertaining whether or not, in his opinion, that measure would come 
before his connnittee. 

Chief flustice Hazen. Yes. 

Dr. Sjmith. It would seem to be a matter that could be regulated 
through your committee. Judge Alexander, inasmuch as it does not 
involve any international action. 

Judge Alexander. That goes Avithout saying. If you are correct 
in your statement, it would come to the Committee on ]Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries. 

Dr. Smith. It regulates our own fishermen and has nothing to do 
Avith the operation of Canadian fishermen in the same Avaters. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you suggest that Ave should submit that 
bill noAv ? 

Judge Alexander. If his statement is accurate. I have no doubt 
about Avhere the bill Avould go. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Pediaps Mr. Quigley will read the bill. It 
might be subject to a fcAv minor changes. 

(Mr. Quigley read the bill in its form up to this time.) 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. SAveet. have you anything that you 
Avould like to ask the judge? 

Mr. Saveet. I think not. I avouIcI simply like to say to the judge 
this, that from the explanation that has been giAen by the chief jus- 
tice, presiding over this meeting, and what he knows of the pei-- 
sonnel of the United States section of the commission, I rather 
imagine that he Avill feel that it is not at all strange that we are 
finding our conference very harmonious and that we are all seeking 
most conscientiously to reach a conclusion that Avill be satisfactory 
and advantageous to the people of both countries and Avill remoA'e all 
the petty causes of irritation that have existed in the past, so that 
Avc> haA'e every reason to believe that our conference Avill result in 
something Avorth Avhile. 

Judge Alexander. Well, I observe such, and with Secretary Red- 
field and yourself to represent our Government, I think the atti- 
tude of the United States toAvard this question Avill be one of open- 
niindedness and fairness and disposition to do the square thing. 

^Ir. Sweet. Well, the Canadian representatives are in every Avay 
as fair and just, so far as the proceedings have gone thus far, as 
the United States representatives. 

Judge Alexander. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I hope 
the results Avill verify Avhat you both say. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Anything either Mr. Desbarats or Mr. 
Found Avould like to ask? 

]SIr. Foi^ND. I'd just like, if the chairman will permit me, to add 
that our reason for having brought this lobster matter so promi- 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 57 

iieiitly out is that it is being mainl_y carried on — I think tliat adverb 
is the right one — by Canadian fishermen. These American smaclvs 
come down with no one but the captain and the engineer and hire 
the Canadian fishermen to carry on the fishing for them, so that you 
Avill see the embarrassing situation down among the local fishermen. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We thank you A'ery much, indeed. Judge 
Alexander, for coming here this morning: we appreciate it xovy 
much. 

Mr. QuiGLEY. Mr. Chief Justice, if there isn't any further busi- 
ness before the meeting I would like to fill in the interval with a 
little discussion of the language that I referred to a little while ago 
in connection with this bill. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Yes: I think this is the opportune time for 
that. 

(An extended informal discussion followed. The bill as finally 
drafted reads as follows:) 

A BILL To prohibit the importation, bringing into, or landing in the United States, and 
so forth, of lobsters taken in waters outside territorial waters of Canada and opposite 
thereto during closed seasons in such waters. 

Be it enacted hii tlie Senate and House of Representatires of the United 
States of America in. Co-nyress assembled. That on and after the approval of 
this act it shall he unlawful for any vessel, boat, person, or corporation to 
import or bring into or land in the United States any lobsters taken or caught 
in waters outside territorial waters of Canada and opposite thereto during 
such period as there is, under the laws or regulations of the Dominion of 
Canada, a closed season for lobster fishing in such waters, or for any person 
or corporation to offer for sale or have in possession any such lobsters, know- 
ing the same to have been imported or brought into oi- landed in the United 
States in violation of this act. 

Sec. 2. Any person or corporation violating any provision of this act shall, 
for the first olTense, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more 
than .$3,000. and any lobsters found in his possession in violation of this act 
shall be forfeited to the United States ; and upon the conviction of any such 
]iei-son or corporation of a second or any subsequent oifense. in addition to the 
fine and the forfeiture hereinbefore provided for. any boat or vessel used or 
employed in any violation of this act, together with its tackle, apparel, furni- 
ture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States. 

Sec. 3. Any violation of this act shall be prosecuted in the district court of 
the United States in the district in which such violation shall occur or in which 
the offender is found. 

Sec. 4, It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to enforce the 
provisions of this act. and he is authorized to empower such officers and em- 
ployees of the I>ei(artment of Connuerce as he may designate, or such officers 
and employees of other deiiartments as may l»e detailed for the purpose, to 
seai-ch any vessel in ))orts or places in the United States suspected of having 
violated the jirovisions of this act. and to make arrests a.nd to seize vessels 
used or emjiloyed in the violation of this act a,nd any lobsters unlawfully 
ini]K)rted brought Into or landed in the T'^nited States. 

(It was unanimously voted by the conference that the bill should 
read as just quoted.) 

Chief Justice Hazen. Here is a letter from Mr. Chamberlain, a 
memorandum for Secretary Redfield : 

I was wrong in stating so emphatically that the act of 1898 amending sec- 
tion 3101» does not apply to the Atlantic ports of the United States. It woul',1 
apply if eases ;irise in such ports, which is seldt)m. if ever, so far as I am 
awa.re. the case. The act of 1S!)8 was designed to meet Alaska conditions. To 
cover both the seaboard of Alaska and the Yukon and Stikine Rivers, the 
words "by sea or otherwise" were incorporated in the amendatory act. Those 
words extend the act to Atlantic ports. 



58 AMERlCAN-CANADIAlSr PISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

I hasten to correct my misstatement, into which I was led by reflection 
solely upon the purpose of the act of 1808 and by the fact that I have no 
record of a case under the act ever havin.c come to my notice. 

I inclose full memoranda on the act of 1898. (See Exlul)its Q to U. pases 
375-378.) 

Respectfully, 

E. T. (Jha.mbehi.atx. CoiinHissioiwr. 
January 24, 14)18. 

So he is now evidently of the opinion that that act does apply to tlie 
Atlantic coast. 

Mr. Sweet. Here is a eop}^ of a letter that was received from the 
Secretary of the Treasury, and he has red-lined a part of the letter. 

Chief Justice Hazen. This is a letter dated February 9. 1898, ad- 
dressed to the Hon. William P. Frye. chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce, United States Senate, and signed by L. J. Gage, Secretary 
of the Treasury. This is the part that is marked by Mr. Chamberlain : 

Section 4. section 8109 of the Revised Statutes, is part of an act passed in 
1866. The treaty for the purchase of Alaska was made in 1807. There is 
some doubt, therefore, whether section 3100 is aiiplicable to Alaska. This bill 
makes it specitically applicable. The insertion of the words " transfer her 
cju-go or ])assengers to another vessel " Is necessary, as sea-going vessels at 
St. IMichael do not " proceed farther inland." There is not enough water ; 
accordingly, they transfer. The section is a necessary supplement to section 3 
of the bill, as it fixes the penalty on the vessel for violation of the regulations. 

Well, anyway, that applies to the Atlantic coast, in the opinion of 
Mr. Chamberlain, but he saj^s the cases never arise. 

(Discussion relative to Boston meeting and adjournment. ) 



Friday, January 25^ 1918. 

The meeting was called to order at 10.30 o'clock. Chief Justice 
Hazen, of Canada, presiding. 

As there was no further business before the conference, adjourn- 
ment was taken to meet in Boston on January 31, 1918. 



HEARINGS AT BOSTON. 

Boston, January 31, 1918. 

The Boston hearing of the American-Canadian Fisheries Confer- 
ence, to consider the questions in dispute between the United States 
and Canada, were begun in the Boston Chamber of Commerce at 10 
o'clock a. m. 

The representatives of the two countries present were : 

Canadian: Hon. John Douglas Hazen. Chief Justice of New 
Brunswick; Mr. William A. Found. Superintendent of Fisheries of 
the Dominion of Canada; secretary — Mr. Arnold Robertson, First 
Secretary of the British Embassy at Washington. 

The Iton. Creorge J. Desbarats was absent because of illness. 

American: Hon. William C. Redfield. Secretary of Commerce; 
Hon. Edwin F. Sweet, Assistant Secretary of Commerce ; Dr. Hugh 
M. Smith, Connnissioner of Fisheries; secretary — Edward T. Quigiey, 
Esq., Assistant Solicitor of the Department of Commerce. 

Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, presided. 

Among those interested in the work of the commission who were 
present at the hearing in Boston Avere the following: 

Hon. W. AV. Lufkin, Member of Congress; Hon. Charles D. Brown, 
State senator, of Gloucester; W. G. Adams, chairman of the Massa- 
chusetts Fish and (jame Commission ; Arthur L. Millett, of Massa- 
chusetts Fish and Game Commission; Horatio D. Crie, Edward W. 
Gould, and H. C. Wilbur, Maine Commission of Sea and Shore Fish- 
eries; E. O. Ladd. operating herring weirs. Pickering Island, East 
Penobscot Bay, Me.; A. L. Parker, Boston, president Boston Fish 
Pier Co.; Capt. Carl C. Young, Gloucester; Sylvester Whalen, sec- 
retary Fishing Masters Associ'ation, Boston; W. J. O'Brien, presi- 
dent Boston Fish Markets' Corporation; H. B. Ritchie, Boston fish 
commission merchant; Wilmot A. Reed, secretary Gloucester Board 
of Trade ; John W. Fullom, member Boston Fish Pier Co. ; C. K. Sul- 
livan, fish dealer, representing NeAv York fishing interests; William 
H. Brown, Boston, secretary^Fishermen's I'nion; M. A. Nickerson 
and A. L. PoAvell, of the Boston Lobster Co. ; Fred L. Davis, presi- 
dent Gloucester Board of Trade ; George E. Willey, president Boston 
Fish Bureau; C. F. Wonson, Gloucester Board of Trade; D. F. Ward 
and T. J. O'Hara. of the Boston Fish Pier Co. ; Xewman Shea, agent 
Fishermen's Union at Gloucester; ex-State Representative William F. 
Doyle; John Burns, jr.. Bay State Fish Co.; Henry Yotte, manager 
marine department Bay State Fish Co. ; Frank S. Willard, of Port- 
land, Me., lobster business; O. M. Arnold, president New England 
Fish Co. ; Gardner Poole, Boston Fish Bureau ; J. G. Cox, of the 
Consolidated Lobster Co.; W. Monroe Hill, of Shattuck & Jones. 
Faneuil Hall Market ; Lunis Leavens, commissioner of fisheries and 
game, Vermont; D. A. Loomis, superintendent Lake Champlain 

59 



60 AMEKICAN--CANADIA1ST FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 

Transportation Co. and president Lake George Steamboat Co. ; Koy 
L. Patrick. Vermont Fish and Game League ;" Joseph A. Rich, of the 
Bay State Fishing Co. : and John W. Titcomb, New York State fish 
ciiitnrist. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. 

Secretary Eedfield. Gentlemen, please be seated. The Canadian- 
American P'isheries Conference has met here through the courtesy, 
which we desire to acknowledge at the very beginning, of tlie 
Boston Chamber of Commerce "for the purpose of giving a full 
opportunity to any who may so desire to express their views 
upon the subject which the conference has under consideration. 
The conference had its origin in facts which must be widely known 
to you all. In this great war the people of Canada and the people 
of the United States are fighting side by side for one common cause. 
The enemy Avhich threatens them is the foe which endangers us. 
They have been longer in the field than we; they have made greater 
sacrifices than we thus fav for the common cause, and bee ause it is a 
common cause, because we are thus united in a struggle upon which 
tlie future of both nations alike depends, it was deemed wise by the 
Government of the United States to extend to the Government of 
the Dominion of Canada an invitation that that GoAernment and our 
own discuss together in the same spirit of mutual concord which is 
animating- our armies all the questions that may remain open con- 
nected with the fisheries both upon the Atlantic and the Pacific 
coasts, as well as the Lakes, that the fullest possible light may be 
thrown upon the facts bearing upon all these questions. It is de- 
sired that the fullest opportunity maj'^ be given to everyone who 
wishes to do so to contribute facts throwing light upon the subject in 
all its phases, in the hope, and, judging from the progress of the con- 
ference thus far, in the belief, that it will be possible to remove the 
causes of irritation wherever they may be found to exist, continuing 
in that spirit of mutual good will wliich is leading their sons and 
our sons to die together on one common field of battle to-da}^ 

This conference meets, furthermore, under other cii'cumstances 
which are peculiar. We are giving to the question of our food sup- 
ply a degree of thought Avhich it lias never been given before, and 
the temper of the public mind of America is one which will not ver}- 
readily brook a future which interferes with the largest freedom in 
obtaining that food supply. The question with us. therefore, is not 
only a question concerning Nev\ England or any portion of New 
England, but is one affecting St. Louis. Chicago, Spokane, New 
Orleans, Nashville. Buffalo — cities South. North, East, and West — in 
a vital way. all communities being deeply concerned. 

We must not. therefore, think of this in any sense as a local 
matter. It is a national matter. We are dealing Avith a very sensi- 
tive public conscience and a very well-informed public mind on the 
subject of a national food suppl3^ or. I should say more truly, the 
subject of an international food supply. 

It is the purpose of the conference to hold hearings in Gloucester, 
in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, and ultimately to proceed to 
the Pacific Northwest and to British Columbia, if not to Alaska. 



AMERICAN-CAN" ADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 61 

This, gentlemen, is to be open diplomacy. So far as my knowledge 
goes, it is a unique courtesy that the Canadian Government has done 
us, not only in sending of its best but in permitting them, at our 
invitation, to sit in our own hearings. They are here with all the 
privileges that the commissioners of the United States have, to give 
information and to ask it. They are as free to ask questions of you 
as we are, representing the United States more directly, and they 
will gladly give information to j^ou. Through their courtesy they 
have extended to us the same privilege of going into their country, a 
unique courtesy, one which we value highly, and the American com- 
missioners here present expect next week to be with our Canadian 
brethren in St. John and wherever else in Canada the necessities of 
the case may call us. 

I think nothing more need be said by way of introduction. We 
have no program, but are ready to listen to any one who may desire 
to lay facts before us. We shall ask you to be prepared, if 3^ou make 
suggestions to us, to submit to questioning. We are here not in any- 
body's interests; we are here to get the truth, and we intend, so far 
as lies within our power, to get the truth, no matter whom it may 
affect, no matter what its results may be. We are not here to protect 
or defend any person, interest, party, or organization, but to rep- 
resent, so far as lies in our power to do so, all the people of the 
United States at large. Our friends, on their side, are here to rep- 
resent the people of the Dominion of Canada at large; and we will 
ask .you, so far as lies in your power to do so, to remember that the 
broad view of the question, the countrywide view of the question, the 
view that affects the dwellers in the Mississippi A^alley as much as it 
affects the people in New England and along the Atlantic coast, is 
the viewpoint from which, in this world crisis, it seems important to 
deal' with this question. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I would like an entry made in the minutes, 
Mr. Secretary, to the effect that our colleague, Mr. George J. Desbarats, 
deputy minister of the naval service of the Dominion of Canada, is 
unfortunately unable to be present to-day by reason of illness, a fact 
very much regretted by Mr. Found and mj^self , who will be deprived 
of Mr. Desbarat's valuable services. I am sure also that his absence 
will be regretted by the members of the American section of this com- 
mission, who had the pleasure of meeting him in conference in Wash- 
ington recently. I hope and .expect, however, that his indisposition 
is of only a temporary character and that he will be able to resume his 
duties in a very short time. 

Secretary Redfield. The minute that Mr. Chief Justice Hazen 
requests will be made. The American commissioners, who have had 
the pleasure of Mr. Desbarats's assistance in Washington, very greatly 
regret his illness and join in the hope that it may be but brief. T\Tiat 
is the pleasure of the gentlemen present? Is anybody ready to pro- 
ceed with anv statement or expression of views? 

Mr. Sylvester M. Whalen (secretary of Boston Fishing Masters' 
Association). Mr. Chaiiman, I think it would be very helpful if the 
chairman of the commission would outline any concrete propositions 
that might be considered in respect to this question or toward which 
any discussion might tend. Of course, we want to avoid an aimless 
discussion of the fisheries in general, and I think it would be very 
helpful to people here if some concrete facts could be put before us. 



62 AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 

Secretaiy Redfield. The chairman will say that the only reason 
Avliy a definite announcement was not made is because neither the 
purpose of the commission nor its scope is limited to any particular 
program nor to any particular phase of the matter under considera- 
tion. We are ready to hear anything on any phase of the matter. 
Our discussion in Washington has I'un fi'om the halibut banks off the 
coast of Alaska to general conditions cloAvn the coast. We have 
talked about the Fraser Eiver, have talked about the whale fishing 
off the Pacific coast in its present form, about the Great Lakes, about 
Lake Champlain, the Lake of the Woods, and about the Atlantic 
coast, considering these questions in their various relations. There 
is no phase of the whole subject about which we are not anxious to 
learn all that can be learned. But if it can be clearly understood in 
advance that in putting before ,you any subject we are not thereby 
imposing limitations upon anybody who desires to speak upon any- 
thing else, if that is perfectly plain, I shall be very glad indeed to say 
that, as set forth in the notice sent on the 24th instant to the New 
England fishing interests, it was stated that these subjects were before 
the conference, and. among others, they will be made the subject of 
inquiry. 

1. The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses 
to American fishing vessels, by whatever means they may be pro- 
pelled, and the reduction of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered 
ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel and that the renewal of the 
licenses from year to year be not conditional on an order in council 
of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement 
itself, 

2. That United States fishing vessels be allowed to sell their fish in 
Canadian ports for Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as 
well as to sell in bond. 

3. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait and 
all other supplies and outfits in United States ports on equal terms 
Avith American fishing vessels. 

4. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches 
direct to ITnited States ports and sell them there, subject to customs 
duty, if any. 

5. That the fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the 
other be given clearances for the fishing grounds, if so desired. 

6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks 
from fishing off the Canadian coasts during the closed season foi 
lobster fishing on such coasts. 

I think that covers the substance of the memorandum, but it is 
not in any sense to be taken as either inclusive or exclusive. We have 
discussed other matters and are ready to do so now. The question of 
the Canadian bounties is one that has been frankly discussed; the 
Avhole question of the constructions of law in either country upon its 
own vessels or the vessels of others ; the whole matter of the relative 
wages and standards of living. All those questions have been dis- 
cussed and are open for discussion. So the whole subject is open. 
We should like light upon any one of these matters. 

Take foi- example, if you wish, the fact that under the present 
modus vivendi American vessels with power are not given licenses 
in Canadian ports, that for the licenses which are given a fee of $1.50 
a ton is now required, and that both of these propositions are now 



AMEBIC AN-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 63 

proposed to be waived; that, on the other hand, the suggestion is 
made that Canadian vessels may clear from Boston direct to the 
fishing grounds and come direct with their catch from the fishing- 
grounds, the whole weight and bearing of the Canadian bounty, so 
far as it exists: all the conditions that you understand alfect the 
conditions of the industry favorably or unfavorably. 

Is there anything you care to suggest, Mr. Chief Justice? 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I presume, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, 
that the gentlemen who are gathered here together this morning are 
principally interested in the question of the Atlantic fisheries, and 
not in the question of the protection of the Eraser Eiver, except to 
the extent that all people in this country interested in food supplies 
are interested generally in the protection of that river, as they are 
also interested from the same standpoint in phases of the question 
affecting the Pacific coast. But I presume those here are more di- 
rectly interested in what is known as the Atlantic-fisheries question, 
which is one that has been discussed from time to time practically 
ever since the War of 1812. 

It is unnecessary for me to point out to the gentlemen here inter- 
ested in the fishing business that the only rights which the fishing 
A'essels of the United States have in the ports of Canada, except tem- 
porary ones, are given to them under the treaty of 1818, which is 
still in force, under which treaty the fishing vessels of the United 
States have a right to enter Canadian ports for four purposes, and 
for four purposes only — for shelter, for repairs, to obtain wood, and 
to obtain water. Those are the only rights that are secured to-day 
under treaty to American fishermen in Canadian ports. 

Attempts have been made from time to time, and negotiations have 
taken place between Canada and the United States with that end in 
view looking to a more permanent and satisfactory arrangement than 
exists to-day ; and sometime, about 1886 or 1887. a treaty was en- 
tered into which unfortunately, I think, looking at it in the light 
of past events, did not receive the approval of the Congress of the 
United States, providing that, in exchange for the free admission 
of Canadian fish into the markets of the United States, United 
States fishing vessels should have the right to go into Canadian ports 
practically as freely and for the same purposes that Canadian fish- 
ing A^essels can go into those ports to-clay. That is, they could go 
there for the purpose of selling their catch, for the purpose of buy- 
ing bait, for the purpose of shipping crews, and for any other pur- 
pose that the fishing interests might think desirable. Unfortunately. 
I say, that treaty did not receive the sanction of the Congress of the 
United States: but. pending the consideration of the treat.y by the 
Congress of the United States. Canada enacted legislation, and it 
was expected that that legislation would only require to be effective 
for a year or two until the treaty was agreed to. under which a modus 
vivendi was established by means of which, upon the payment of 
$1.50 per ton for the registered tonnage of the Aessel, the American 
fishermen took out a license which gave him the right to enter the 
ports of Canada for other purposes than the four purposes named in 
the treaty of 1818 — namely, for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. 



64 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Although that proposed ti'eaty I have referred to was not con- 
tinued by Congress, for 30 years, annually, that modus vivendi has 
been renewed. Year by year for the past 'M) years the GoA-ernment of 
Canada has passed an order in council each year extending the opera- 
tion of the modus vivendi for another year, and under that modus 
vivendi United States fishing vessels have been making use of Cana- 
dian ports over and above the rights secured by the treaty of 1818. 

That has been by no means, of course, a stable arrangement. It 
has been entirely within the rights of the (Tovernment of Canada 
each year to decline to renew the modus vivendi, and then the United 
States vessels would have to depend on the rights secured to them 
under the treaty of 1818. 

Some years ago a change was made in the Ignited States tariif 
under which fresh and frozen fish were admitted free to the inarkets 
of the United States, and after the tariif Avas changed in that respect 
representations Avere made to the Government of Canada by the Goa^- 
ernment of the Ignited States asking them if they Avould not consider 
it proper and right that, in view of the fact that they were noAv 
obtaining the free admission of fish into the markets of the United 
States, the modus vivendi prevailing should be extended so as to 
include all fishing vessels, and not simply the fishing vessels that are 
propelled by sail, Avhich is the laAv of to-day. As it is to-day, onl}' 
those vessels Avhose motive -power is the wind have the right to come 
to our ports under the modus vivendi. The vessels Avhose motive 
power is steam, or some other motive poAver such as gasoline, vessels 
Avith auxiliary poAver of different sorts, are not alloAved to take out 
a license under the modus vivendi. 

In answer to that representation on the part of your Government, 
Ave pointed out that the admission of fish free into the United States 
was not a concession to the people of Canada, but that it Avas the out- 
come of a general tariff policy adopted by your country ; that it Avas 
not under a treaty made with us, but that the same privilege was 
extended to the Avhole Avorld, to Newfoundland and to any other 
country from Avhich fish might come; that it Avas simply a matter of 
domestic policy Avith you, and a policy that you might revoke at any 
time that it occurred to you that it Avas to your interest to revoke it 
and place a protective tariff against fish coming from other countries. 
We further pointed out that, under your customs and navigation 
laAvs, we AA'ere not getting the benefit that Avould otherAvise accrue 
from the free admission of fish, because our vessels that Avent to the 
Banks to catch fish could not bring those fish into the port of Boston 
or any other port of the United States along the Atlantic coast; that 
they Avere first obliged to go to a. Canadian port and there either 
transfer their fish into a merchant vessel or change their oAvn regis- 
ter, getting themselves registered as a trading vessel, and then com- 
ing to the'ports of this country. We further pointed out that our 
vessels, having discharged their fish in American ports, could not 
clear then for the fishing grounds ; that they Avere compelled to clear 
for a Canadian port, and from that port to the fishing grounds, 
thereby causing considerable delay, seriously limiting their poAver to 
bring rapid cargoes of fish to your market. 

We further pointed out that* Ave Avere having difficulty in protecting 
the lobster industry Avhich unfortunately has become a Avaning in- 
dustry. It is becoming very difficult to protect it. We have been 



AMERICAN- CANADIAN FISIIEEIES CONFEEENCE. 65 

endeavoring to protect it by the use of closed seasons, but unfortu- 
nately our jurisdiction extends only to 3 miles from the shore, and 
just beyond our territorial limits, at certain times, when our closed sea- 
son is in effect, well smacks from the American side have come across, 
and, lying just outside the three-mile territorial limit, have caught 
lobsters, while our own fishermen could look out from our shores 
and see the Americans catching the lobsters outside the three-mile 
limit that our men would not be allowed to catch within the law; 
and, v,'hat has heightened the dissatisfaction and caused irritation 
among our people, is that American vessels have come there simply 
with a captain and engineer, from an American port, and have hired 
our own fishermen to go on those vessels and help yioJate our own 
laws passed for the protection and conservation of lobsters, laws 
which are as necessary for you as for us. 

We, therefore, suggested that this whole matter was a matter for 
consideration. We believe, as has been pointed out by the Secretary 
of Commerce, that it is most desirable at the present time that every- 
thing should be done to conserve our food supplies, to develop our 
fisheries, especially at such a time as this, when we are lighting side 
by side, your sons and mine giving their lives on the fields of 
Flanders and France for the sake of democracy, and for the sake of 
the protection of Canada, and, as was said in an article in Munsey's 
the other day, for the sake of the freedom and prosperity of the 
people of the United States. 

This seems to be the opportune time for us to get together aiid, 
regardless of the past, make an arrangement that v;ill be in the 
interest of the people of both countries, of the people of the whole 
North American Continent. 

We are here to-day for that purpose. I have l)een re€[uested hy 
the Government in Canada to serve on this commission, because for 
a period of six years I was minister of marine and fisheries of the 
Dominion of Canada and had to do with making the negotiations 
that led to the present conference. 

I think we are now to see a new step taken in the diplomatic 
relations between the two countries, as pointed out by Secretary 
Eedfield. As commissioners, representing both countries, we are 
meeting here together in Boston, and probably in other parts of 
Massachusetts, to hear what the people interested in the subject here 
have to say, and wdien we leave here we are to have the pleasure and 
honor of being accompanied to the maritime provinces by the Ameri- 
can representatives of this conference, whom the people there v^ill 
be delighted to meet, placing before you their views as you are novr 
placing before us your views to-day. So you see this means a new 
departure in diplomatic relations between the countries. I think 
there will be disappointment in both countries if something beneficial 
does not result from these conferences. 

I would say, in regard to the admission of American ships to 
Canadian ports and of Canadian ships to American ports, that we 
have practically the same question to deal with on the Pacific coast. 
But it would appear that on the Pacific coast the law to some extent 
has been disregarded, because the Canadian vessels reporting at 
Ketchikan, Alaska, are given a clearance, and can then go out and 
get a supply of fish and take it down to an American port or to a 
51950—18 5 



66 AMEBIC A^^-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

Canadian port, as the case may be. without being first compelknl to 
make the port for which they clear; while on this coast, for instance, 
a vessel clearing- from the port of Boston for a Canadian port must 
gv to that port before going to the high seas to make its catch. 

There seems to be, from the statements we heard in AVashington, 
seme differentiation in the construction of the law on the different 
coasts. 

Secretary Keofield. I think it is correct to say. as Mr. Chief 
-Tustice Hazen has pointed out, that the custom on the Pacific coast, 
both with American and Canadian vessels, is the direct reverse of 
that which prevails on the Atlantic coast. Our fishing vessels there 
do go. are invited to go, are urged to go, and in a certain sense have 
felt compelled to go into Canadian ports, in a way that is not per- 
mitted under the modus vivendi on this coast. It is the fact that 
from the American port of Ketchikan Canadian vessels take clearance 
and go direct to the fishing grounds and make their catch before mak- 
ing the port for which they clear, the custom in that respect being ex- 
actly opposite to that Avhich prevails on the x\tlantic coast. On both 
sides of the line, therefore, we are facing an entireW different practice. 
The practice on the Atlantic coast, both in the United States and 
Canada, is entirely reverse to that which prevails on the Pacific in 
some respects; and one of the things we are anxious to know is 
Avhether that condition yonder has worked harm to anybody ; Avhether 
it is causing any trouble, and we are going out there to find out. 
But obviously. I submit for your thought, it is a little difficult toj 
urge that a condition ought not to be which already exists yonder 
if it shall appear, shall bo shown that its existence there has worked 
iw harm there. That we are not pre])ared to say as yet. because we 
have not been out thei-e to find out. Xow, gentlemen, we are ready 
ro hear from any of you in the fullest way. 

Capt. NiCKERSox. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is M. H. 
Nickerson, of the Boston Lobster Co. Will you allow me to suggest 
that in order to expedite matters that may come before this com- 
mission it would perhaps be the best plan to call over those topics 
you have already named, one by one in their order, and let whatever 
discussion is necessarv take place (M1 each one of them as thev come 

up? 

Secretary Eedeiei.d. I concur with Mr. Chief Justice Hazen in 
thinking that that is more likely to delay than to help. I am sure 
there are many gentlemen here who are familiar with the whole 
subject and have their views upon it. There can be no objection, I 
ihink. to speaking them out plainly. Perhaps, folloAving in a way 
the line suggested by Capt. Nickerson. I might raise one simple 
question. What is the objection, if any. to Canadian vessels clearing 
from Boston to the fishing ground, and coming direct from the fish- 
ing grounds to Boston? Not only Avhat is the objection but what 
are the advantages, if any? There is one clear-cut question. 

STATEMENT BY MR. WILLIAM J. O'BRIEN, PRESIDENT OF THE 
BOSTON EISH MARKET CORPORATION. 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, we are distributors of fresh fish. 
In regard to the matter mentioned by the Secretary, I am highly 
in favor of it. The great problem before the people of the North 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 67 

American continent to-day is that of increase in the food supply 
and reduction in the high cost of living. If we could have reciprocity 
between the fishing interests of Canada and the United States it 
would practical]}^ help to solve that question. 

Chief Justice IIazen. Mr. O'Brien, Avill you permit me to ask you 
a question? If the Government of Canada was Avilling to abolish the 
modus vivendi as it exists at present, doing away with the necessity 
of making an annual order and entering into an arrangement by 
which your vessels would ha^e practically the same rights in 
Canadian ports that the Canadian vessels have — I am speaking of 
fishing vessels — irrespective of whether they are propelled by steam 
or other motive power: if we were willing to do that for a merely 
nominal license fee of. say, a dollar a year, not a dollar a ton, but a 
dollar a year, would it, in your opinion, be a fair thing for the United 
States to agree that Canadian fishing vessels might bring their 
catches directly from the fishing grounds into American ports and 
clear directly from the American ports for the fishing grounds? 
And. in addition to that, would it be a proper thing, in your opinion, 
for your Government to enact legislation that would prevent citizens 
of this country, or the owners of boats registered from the United 
States, from catching lobsters in the high seas opposite territorial 
waters of Canada during such time as there is a closed season in those 
waters for lobsters? That is a pretty long question. Do you compre- 
hend it? 

Mr. O'Beien. I do. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You do think so? 

Mr. CBrien. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Swi<:et. You answer that to both questions; do you? 

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT BY MR. H. C. WILBUR, OF THE BOARD OF COMMIS- 
SIONERS ON SEA AND SHORE FISHERIES OF THE STATE OF 
MAINE. 

^Ir. AViLBUK. Mr. Chairman, T would like to answer the question 
that Judge Hazen asks. x\s I understand it. the commission wants 
expressions of opinion from people interested in the industry? 

Chairman Reufield. Froin eAerybedy. 

Mr. Wilbur. And, I understand, from the meii who may represent 
the different States in connection with this industry. I have studied 
the matter which concluded Mr. Hazen's question in regard to the 
lobster situation, with a number of dealers in lobsters in the State 
of Maine, and a number of men who are fishermen. 1 have discussed 
it with men interested on both sides of the question, and I have 
never heard an expression of opinion, except to the effect that it was 
a very, very unfair thing for the American vessels to do that, and 
that it would be proper governmental regulation to stop them. We 
in Maine are having the same experience from the smacks coining 
from neighboring States where they have a ^-inch lobster law. They 
are doing the same thing with us. They are lying off outside the 
three-mile limit and buying lobsters which it is illegal for our own 
fishermen to catch. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the feel- 
ing against that sort of thing amongst men interested in the lobster 



68 AMEEICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

industry, both as fishers and dealers, is universal. It seen;s to nie in 
the interest of the lobster industry and in the interest of the good 
feeling we are so desirous of bringing into play at this time bet^Yeen 
the tAVo countries, Ave should realize that that is unfair and do our 
best to stop it. 

I shoidd like to say one more thing that perhaps is not (luite rele- 
A'ant to this hearing. The lobster industry in Maine is a large indus- 
try. At least 5,000 men in the State of Maine make their living 
fishing for lobsters. ^YQ have a stringent law in Maine, as all men 
familiar with the industry knoAV. "(A'e believe that at the present 
time, under the neAV order of things, the enforcement of our Maine 
laAv Avill be important. We do not believe that the lobster enters 
into the question of the food supply of this country. The lobster is 
a crustacean, and its A'alue as a food substance is very dotibtfnl. 
and Ave all knoAv that most of the lobsters, both the Kvlegged and 
the 2-legged, go to the Great White Way! (Laughter.) 

We Avovdd merely ask this commission, Avhen they cosne to the (jues- 
tion of considering the throAving doAvn of the bars in regard to fish- 
ing, to bear in mind that the same problem Avhich is presented in that 
respect in connection Avith fishing for sea food fish does not apply 
to lobsters. If there is to be any throwing cloAvn of the bars to in- 
crease the catch, bear in mind the fact that down in Maine we liaA'e 
Avorked a good many years to get to the place where Ave are noAv in 
our lobster bu.siness. As Judge Hazen has said, the industry has 
waned. FolloAving the literature on the subject of lobsters, you can 
look forAvard along the line of direct arithmetical progression to 
the time Avhen the lobster is going to disappear, and not in the dis- 
tant future, but in the very, very present future. So Ave ask the 
connnission to bear in mind some of the difficulties Ave have met with 
in the past, and Ave hope they Avill not in any Avay throw doAvn the 
bars regarding our lobsters. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What is your limit in Maine? Ten and 
one-half inches? 

Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir ; practically that ; Ave measure the carapace, 
44 inches. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And the lobsters sold in Boston must be 9 
inches long? 

Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And those that are caught below your limit 
and up to the Boston limit are sold in the Boston market ? 

Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir. The result of that is — I don't know whether 
it sounds very good to a Massachusetts audience — that we are greatly 
injured, as far as protection of the industry goes, in a manner simi- 
lar to that Avhich has been referred to by the chief justice in Canada, 
Avhere A^essels come just outside the 3-mile limit and catch lobsters. 
We suffer from that same sort of thing, from Boston smacks and 
a feAv NeAV Hampshire smacks that come on to our coats. They buj^^ 
all the 9-inch lobsters from the men, and that means in many cases 
that they get the whole catch, because a man selling to them knows 
that they don't have to be culled, that these short ones don't have 
to be throAvn out, as these felloAvs Avill take them all. Besides, the 
fisliermen are being educated along lawless lines. The result is, 
as I saA\ that the felloAv Avho can sell his 9-incli lobsters leo-alh^ in 



AMEEICAJSr-CAjSTADIAlSr FISIIEKIES CONFEEEISrCE. 69 

this way will not only sell his 9-inch lobsters to the Boston market, 
but also the 104-inch lobsters. 

Secretary Eedfield. I think perhaps it is proper for me to say a 
word at this time as Secretary of Commerce and as a business man. 
as having- a deep interest in the fisheries of the United States, aside 
from what I might say as a member of the commission. I say this 
in all seriousness. Those who are dependent upon the lobster busi- 
ness for their livelihood in any form in this country must expect, 
unless there is an almost immediate change, to have that part of 
their livelihood taken away from them, and not by the act of any- 
body in the woi-ld except the men engaged in the industry itself. 
This is no time for mincing words, and I should be guilty of neglect 
of duty if I did not put this matter frankly and squarely before 
whomever it may concern. If the present methods are continued, 
if the present discordant laws are adhered to for the sake of profit, 
the time when there will be no lobster business can be measured by a 
very few years. We should have had examples enough of this kind 
of thing to lead us to tai^e warning. We have been through a painful 
five years in our department encleavoring to restore the seal herds, 
as they would take them because they could make money out of them, 
and that sort of thing continued until the herds were all but gone. 
Now, at the end of a five years absolutely closed season, protected by 
cruisei's that did their job, we have got the thing back again and can 
maintain it, but we can only maintain it by the strong arm of the law. 
That precise situation faces the lobster industry of this country. 
Please do not think I am speaking of it from a Washington stand- 
point. I have had a house on the coast of Maine for 16 years, and I 
know intimately the facts of which I speak. That business is going 
to be ruined speedily uidess there is a prompt change in the presenr 
discordant laws and methods in New England. I am sorry that I 
have to speak so plainly in this matter, but I am telling the plain 
truth, and this should be said to the men who have an interest at 
stake. 

Now, to the question raised, what objection, what advantage, one 
or the other or both, will arise from having Canadian vessels sail 
direct from Boston to the fishing banks and enter Boston direct 
from those banks ? I will raise another question : What advantage, 
what objection, one or both, would come to American vessels from 
having the present license fee of $1.50 a ton removed from American 
sailing fishing vessels in Canadian ports, and having free entrj^' into 
those ports, on the nominal basis of $1 per vessel per year of fishing 
vessels of whatever -motive power? What advantage, what disadvan- 
tage? That license fee amounted, if I am correct — I am speaking 
from memory — to $106,000, about two years ago, in the year 1915-16. 
I understand that that was the amount of the annual sum collected. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think it has ever been as much as 
that in a single year. 

Secretarj^ Eedfield. Wliat has been the largest amount? 

Chief Justice Hazen. About $8,000 or $10,000, hasn't it, Mr. 
Found ? 

Mr. Found. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Of course, it has been falling off because of 
the decreasing number of sailing vessels and the increasing number 
of vessels under other motive power. 



70 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. M. H. NICKERSON, OF THE BOSTON LOBSTER 

COMPANY. 

Capt. NiCKERsoN. I would like to say just a word on this ques- 
tion at this time. It is one in whicli I liave been interested for a 
great many years, as 1 think some of the gentlemen in Maine know. 
I have obtained a prett}' wide expression of opinion in regard to the 
uiatter in both countries, and I think all are agreeable to it except, 
I think, outfitters in Boston. This same question, to all intents and 
purposes, has arisen on the Pacific coast, and I liave been advised 
that the greatest objection on that side has come from the outfitters 
in Seattle, who would like the patronage of the American boats and 
do not relish the privileges that have been extended to them in 
Prince Rupert. Of course, there has been a different way of dealing 
with the question out there from what prevails here. 

Of course, this law in regard to $1.50 a ton has been a very hard 
law in some ways, because the license fee had to be paid yearly, and 
would ordinarily amount to over $100 for a vessel; and, besides, if 
a Xew England fishing boat took advantage of the modus vivendi 
and came on the scene late in the year and purchased a license, as 
many of them do, along in October or November, they have had to 
pay the full amount and then renew it again as soon as the new year 
came in, if they wished to fish down on that shore. 

I kept up a constant agitation of the matter in many ways, through 
the press and on such platforms as I could get access to, and I found 
that there was great unanimity in both countries on the matter; and 
I may say that when the ill-starred proposition of reciprocity occu- 
pied the attention of both countries, I succeeded in getting Mr. Field- 
ing to put into his platform that very same formula with regard to 
admission of A^essels that is being considered here to-day. It was 
there stated that they could have the same privileges that are now 
given for the sum of $1, and I am sorry to say, and have always 
regretted it since, that both countries turned down that proposition. 
I am now ready to support it with all my might as it appears here, 
and I think it represents the general opinion of all the gentlemen 
present. 

STATEMENT BY MR. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON 

FISH PIER CO. 

Mr. Parker. Mr. Secretary. Ave have to do mostly Avith the dis- 
tributing of fresh fish. 

In regard to the proposition in regard to American vessels going 
into Canadian waters and ports, we belieA'e that that would be a 
great help, especially in the case of vessels that have power. At 
the present time the greater part of the vessels have poAver, and this 
would alloAv them to go in there Avhen they have a small trip aboard, 
for instance during hard Aveather in the winter, and ship their fish 
home if they so desired, thereby having fish arriA^e in our markets 
jn a better condition, giving the people better fish. 

In regard to the other side of the question, about having the 
Canadian vessels land their fish in our Abaters at our Avharves, we 



AMERICAlSr-CANADIAIS" FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. 71 

also, looking at it from the point of view of the greatest good to the 
greatest miniber, approve of that. 

I think the remarks you made in the opening address were verj' 
good. Taking everything into consideration, looking at the matter 
from a patriotic standpoint, I think I may safely say that I repre- 
sent the opinion of my company, which includes 28 of the distribut- 
ing firms on the new Fish Pier, in this matter. I tliink that is the 
opinion of the greatest distributing firm around here. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak 
to us on tile question of the advantage to the American fishermen 
of having the American and Canadian ports open in the way sug- 
gested ? 

STATEMENT BY ME. WILLIAM H. BEOWN, SECEETAEY OE THE 
EISHEEMEN'S UNION. 

Mr. Bkown. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, speaking from the 
fisliermen's standpoint — that is, from the standpoint of the men actn 
ally emph)yed and working the vessels, catching the fish — this license 
law of a d'olhir is a very good thing. That is the way in which we 
regard it from our standpoint. It doesn't mean as much to the owner 
of the vessel as it means to the fisherman himself, because in my 19 
,years' fishing I have always found that when the license was taken 
out the fisherman had to pay three-quarters or four-fifths of that 
license, Avhich weighs heavily on him. So that would be one benefit 
to the men, the fishermen. 

In regard to our \essels, American vessels, landing their fish in 
Canadian ports, that is a rarity, unless Ave have got what we call a 
broken trip in our American vessels. We know that when we come 
home we have to go to our families bringing a dollar, anyway. Our 
expenses are high, and when Ave get through Ave have got to have a 
dollar, anyway, to keep oui- families Avith. If Ave have to stay out a 
Aveek or a month more before we can raise a dollar, our families are 
put out of our homes before we get back. I have in mind an inci- 
dent only last week. Avhere a man Avas gone aAvay seven Aveeks and 
made a j)retty good trip, sixty odd dollars, but in the meantime his 
Avife, Avith t,Avo or three children, kept coming to my office and had to 
be kept going until her husband came home. He Avas gone seven 
Aveeks. although he had, as it turned out, a pretty nice trip. He has 
gone again, and as things are he may not get back for 9 or 10 Aveeks. 

NoAv,^ if the Canadian vessels haA^e the privilege of landing in the 
port of Boston, Avhere they Avould be getting a fair price for fish — 
that is, from the fisherman's standpoint — the market Avould dro]), 
naturally, in accordance Avith the laAV of supply and demand. If it 
drops Avith the present scale of prices noAv, the fishermen from the 
ports of Boston and Gloucester Avould go home Avithout very many 
dollars in their pockets to feed their families, because our expenses 
haA'e been raised in some cases 300 or 100 per cent in this last year. 
Take the matter of lines: I understand to-day a 10-line tub traAvl, 
11-pound line, costs $16. Every man on a single dory vessel has four 
of them in his charge. If they lose them, and in this Aveather they 
lose a lot, as high as 14, 15, or 16 tubs a trip, three-quarters or four- 
fifths of the expense has to come out of the crcAv. The OAvner pays 



72 AMKRR'AN-CANADIAX FlSllEKIliS COXFEEENCE. 

one-tiflli or oiie-cnua-ter. It is the same way in regard to bait. I 
Ava>s talking to one of the lisherinen yesterday on the dock and he said 
they paid 5:[ for herring, and that it was poorer and they had to 
throw a good deal of it away. It is the same with all other com- 
modities that are shipped — grub, ice. and bait. Five hundred dollars 
or six hundred dollars used to be a big expense for going on a five 
or six weeks' trip. To-day you can not go away with an average of 
$900. and we have to have a very good stock to take home on the 
average a common laborer's pay to our families when 3^ou figure on 
the losses such as I have referred to. 

Now, what will be the result if we have Canadian vessels running 
into the port of Boston with large cargoes of fish? I don't think the 
price of labor or the price of building those schooners or steamers 
will cost as much as it would cost on the American end. So, natu- 
rally, they will not look for so much percentage. 

Chief justice Hazex. Why won't they cost as much, Mr. Brown? 

Mr. Broavx. Labor is cheaper in Canada than in America. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Have you any figures to justify that state- 
ment ? 

Mr. BpxOwx. I think vou can get the carj^enters in Xova Scotia 
for $3 or $4. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I think you will find that Avages in Canada 
to-day are as high as they are in the Ignited States. 

Mr. Bmvwx. Labor of all kinds? 

Chief Justice Hazex. I think so. 

Mr. Bkowx. In connection with slupbuiUling? 

Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. 

Mr. Bkoa\x. Well. I stand to be corrected. I know the wages 
used to be pretty low when I was over there. I worked in Yar- 
mouth f(n' prettv cheai) wages. But undei- the ccmdilions I speak 
(d', the law of sup}dy and demand, on the fishermen's end of it, will 
soit of drive a lot of fishermen out of the fishing industry, because 
the life is arduous. The fishermen have to go aAvay and leave their 
families vdiei tl-ey are on fishing trips, and unless there is some 
inducement they will not continue. Thev are trying hard now to 
keep the men going and to kee]") the ve-^sels up. The tendency of the 
times is to dri\ e nreu ashore, to shore work, workijig in business of 
other kinds — carpenters and others. We have all kinds of men 
going fishing. 

^Ir. Sweet. Is there any law uoav to prevent an American from 
getting his fishing vessel built in Canada, if he Avants to. instead of 
in the United States? 

Mr. Broavx. He can't go down there uoav and build. 

Mr. Saveet. Can't he? 

Mr. Broavx. I don't think so. Of course, an American concern 
might have a branch doAvn there, I suppose. 

5lr. Saveet. Just Avait a moment. Until recently there Avas a law 
that forbade American registry to foreign-built vessels, but that is 
not the laAv noAA'. 

Capt. NiCKEESOX. AlloAv me to say that there has been an order 
since that time. 

Secretary Eedfield. Perhaps it wo\dd be Avell not to interrupt 
]\fi'. Bi-OAvn at this time. 



AMEETCAN-CANADIAN" FISHERIES CONPEEElSrCE. 73 

Capt. NicKEKsox. Well, I simply vvanted to say. as lono- as this 
point is up. that we wanted a vessel built down there and brought 
over here, and the Canadian Government refused, except under a 
certain license, and w^e have not yet discovered what kind of a 
license was necessary. That boat is being built at Clarks Harbor; 
and I think the department answered my first request by sending me 
a copy of the order and said that the license was necessary, and it 
also stated in the letter that this act would show where to obtain the 
license and in what way, and it didn't. Then I put the matter into 
the hands of Mr. Fielding, who is working it up now. But at the 
present time the boat can not come from Clarks Harbor to the 
United States — not because the United States Government is against 
it but because for some reason a regulation in Canada forbids it. 

JNIr. Sweet. Undoubtedly a war measure, the same as we are now 
putting rulings into force for war purposes. I suppose it is simply 
a rule applied owing to war conditions. 

Mv. Brown. Well, I haven't much more to say, gentlemen, except 
that I am looking at this from the fishermen''s standpoint, from the 
standpoint of the wages of the poor man — the laborer — and I feel 
that if the wages are cut down or the price of fish is cut down to a 
Aery great degree, while other commodities are not cut down, it 
will drive a great many men out of the business. If we could get 
cheaper bait, cheaper grub, cheaper ice, etc., from the owner's stand- 
point as well as from the fishermen's standpoint, we might be able to 
drop the price of fish a little more. A short while ago some gentle- 
men appeared in front of Mr. Endicott, in connection with the food 
situation, trying to see if there was any way of getting cheap fish, 
and I think the gentlemen on the dock have complied to the best of 
their ability with suggestions that have been made, in order to give 
cheap fish. But they Avill answer for themselves, I suppose, after 
awhile. We catch them, and they have the selling part. But I 
don't think that side of the thing w^ould be a benefit, or that alone 
wouldn't be enough, with the situation that would arise if w^e let the 
Canadian steam trawlers come in here in this way. I don't think 
the Canadian schooners would bother coming here very much. If 
they could get a good market in their own country, I don't think 
they would come. But take the steam trawlers, carrying 240,000 and 
•250"^,000 pounds of fish, they would probably be attracted by a good 
market here, and I think, as I say, that that would hurt our men, 
because the wages of the fishermen there are not as large as the 
wages we are getting here in American ports, and it might result in 
reducing our wages, instead of making things a little bit better for us. 

Secretary Eedfield. Mr. Found, what can you say about the wages 
paid on Canadian vessels? 

Mr. FouxD. I would like to be clear as to whether fishing schooners 
or steam trawlers are referred to? 

Mr. Bboavx. Steam trawlers. 

Mr. FocxD. You mean to say that the wages on steam trawlers 
operating from United States ports are low^er than on those operat- 
ing from Canadian ports? 

Mr. Beown. Higher. 

Mr. Found. That the wages are higher on this side ? 

Mr. Brow^n. Yes, sir. 



74 AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Found. Can you tell us what the wages are, operating from 
here ? 

Mr. Brown. Well, I was just talking to a man around a week ago — 
in fact, talked with two young fellows who came from Canso, in 
regard to the matter. In fact, I think Mr. Otte or Mr. Xickeison 
have a letter showing the situation in regard to steam trawlers in 
Canada. I understand that they are getting $30 a month and $7 a 
thousand, where they are getting $40 and $7 here, and I think with 
the bigger price for fish here they make more money on the per- 
centage end of it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You think a lai'ger ^^rice is obtained for the 
fish here? 

Mr. Broavn. Yes. We get $40 a month steady Avages on the steam 
trawlers. We simply go out and have no w^atch system outside, only 
in name. We work from 25 to 50 hours night and day, until we 
get that trip of fish out, dressed, and put down in the hold, and there 
is an enthusiasm for it. They are getting a percentage on the catch, 
which makes the men work longer hours than they would at steady 
wages of just so much. If they had only those, they would simply 
demand six hours on and six off — the same as sailors. But when 
you are giA'ing them a percentage also, they catch all the fish they can 
and dress them and put them in in good shape. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That same percentage system is in practice 
on Canadian vessels? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; but the Avages are a bit different. 

Mr. Saveet. Is that $7 a thousand based on the price the fisherman 
get for the fish in the market. 

Mr. Broavn. Yes, sir; $7 on eA'ery $1,000 of stock — the Avhole 
catch — seA^en-tenths of 1 per cent. 

Mr. Found. I have something here that I would like to get on 
the record. Mr. Secretary. I have not before me an exact state- 
ment of the wages paid on Canadian vessels, but I do have before 
me a letter from one of the biggest steam traAvlers operating 
out of Canada — out of Halifax — the writer stating that he has 
to pay 10 per cent more wages than prevail on this side. But 
I liaA^'en't the exact figures. We can get those AA'hen Ave go to St. 
John. 

Chief Justice Hazen. This is from S. Y. Wilson, of Halifax, 
the Leonard Fisheries, Limited. [Handing letter to Chairman 
Redfield.] 

Secretary Eedfield. I Avill read from this letter sent from Hali- 
fax, jSTova Scotia, dated January 26. 1918. It is from the Leonard 
Fisheries, Limited, and is signed by Mr. S. Y. Wilson. 

"' The captain and mates on Canadian steam trawlers are paid 
from ii per cent more than on the fleet operation in United States, as 
they are invariably men of large experience in European Avaters. 
The steam traAvler BaJe!)ie, which we are at present outfitting, has 
been pronounced by one of Gloucester's most successful captains as 
superior to any other steam trawler on this side of the Atlantic.'" 

The commission Avill take pains to get as fully as it can, both 
from this port and Gloucester, and other United States ports, as 
Avell as from Canadian ports, the exact facts as to the operation of 
these vessels, and will welcome now any further light that can 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 75 

be thrown on the rehitive cost of operation of these ships. Mr. 
Brown, we will hear from yon fnrther, if yon wish. 

Mr. Brown. Well, that letter may be all right. I guess the 
English laws on steam trawlers give the captains and mates of the 
trawlers a good amount, but that the crews get the poorest amount. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Have you any evidence to support that 
statement, that the officers get more than on the American side, 
but that the crews do not get as much? 

Secretary Eedfield. The chief justice asks you if you have any 
evidence to support your statement that in Canada they give an 
excess to the officers, but take it out of the men, which I understand 
is the sum and substance of your statement? 

Mr. Brown. Oh, the men get a less percentage than on the Ameri- 
can vessels, I understand. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have you any evidence of that — actual 
facts ? 

Mr. Brown. I wotdd have to get Mr. Burns to corroborate that 
statement. He would have the figures in his office. He is more in 
touch with those people than I am, as a common man. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, we shall be very glad indeed to hear 
from Mr. Burns. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Brown, you have referred to the cost 
of supplies. Have you made any comparison of the cost of supplies 
required on board these fishing vessels, in Canada and the TTnited 
States? Have you a list showing the different costs? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir; I haven't — only I suppose that 75 per cent 
of the men that go out of Boston and Gloucester are Canadians and 
Newfoundlanders, who come across here, and they tell me that 
more is paid here than for Canadian vessels. But as far as the facts 
and figures are concerned, I haven't got them. I think, however, 
that there would be no trouble in getting them. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I simply wished to find out if you had made 
any comparison of the cost — the prices paid in Canada and in the 
United States for food and materials used in vessels? You have 
stated that the cost is greater in the United States than in Canada, 
and I wanted to know what the figures w^ere. My statement, of 
course, is not evidence ; but my information is that the cost of those 
supplies entering into fishing vessels is fully as great, and in some 
cases greater, on the Canadian side than on' this side of the line. I 
thought, perhaps, you might have some figures to show whether or 
not that was correct. 

Mr. Brown. No. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You will try to get them, of course? 

Mr. Broavn. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. I would say, Mr. Brown, that now or later — 
at any time when you get hold of definite figures, or when anybody 
here gets hold of definite figures — we shall be more than glad to 
have you send them to Washington to be made a matter of record 
in Washington. 

Mr. Sweet. I did not understand you to say whether you attach 
any advantage to American vessels having such privileges in Cana- 
dian ports as have been referred to here to-day — with $1 license 
annually per vessel. Would there be a material advantage to our 



76 AMERICAN-CAN ADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

American fishermen on power or steam vessels in being allowed to 
go into Canadian ports and have the privileges there that Canadian 
vessels have? 

Mr. Bkown. Why, in the way I have referred to, there would be 
in connection with this license matter. It would saA^e $75 to $80 a 
3^ear on the creAv. 

Secretary Redfield. Apiece? 

Mr. Beoavn. No; the whole creAV. Then, sometimes, in hard 
Aveather, when a A^essel has been out three, four, or fiA^e weeks without 
taking a seine, it could go in and get supplies. They might haA^e 
10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 pounds of pretty good fish, and could go in 
and have it taken care of; and, then, they could go out on the banks 
again instead of lying on the banks for nearly tAvo weeks more 
catching fish — b}^ Avhich time those fish Avould be very old before 
coming to Boston. In that Avay Boston Avould be more of a fi-esh- 
fish market, and people would be able to get at all times fresh fish 
on the market. 

Mr. Saa'eet. Weighing the advantages and the disadvantages, is 
it your judgment that it Avould be more for the interests of American 
fishermen that the Canadian A^essels should not be permitted to come 
into our ports? We haA^e been talking about American A^essels 
being kept out of their ports. Of course, it is a question of such 
permission being granted on each side. 

Mr. Broavn. From my standpoint — from the men's standpoint, 
representing the fishermen of Ncav England — I think it Avould be a 
benefit to make both America and XoA'a Scotia harbor places, to 
leaA^e in those clauses; that Avhat Chief Justice Hazen has said would 
be all right as far as our end of it is concerned, in that respect. 

STATEMENT BY ME. JOHN BURNS, JR., OF THE BAY STATE FISH- 
ING CO., BOSTON, MASS. 

Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown has asked me to substanti- 
ate his figures of comparison of Avages paid on the Canadian traAvlers 
as compared Avith our traAvlers here. It may be asked, before I get 
through, if I can substantiate those. I can only do it in this way: 
That it is a fact that the officers of traAvlers from Canadian ports 
are paid a larger wage or the compensation is greater than on our 
boats liere. At the same time the creAvs get a less amount. Those 
figures I haA^e in my office. 

But, representing the Bay State Fishing Co., which is primarily 
a producing company, I belicA^e it would be more or less harmful to 
throw the ports of the United States open to foreign ships producing 
fish. We are placed, I think, under many disadA^antages. Whether 
or not this is a Avar measure, Avhether or not it is proposed that the 
arrangement be made simply for the duration of the Avar, it seems 
to me is a A'ery important question. 

As to the cost of operating, we get most of our nets from the 
other side. We are paying 60 per cent duty on our nets at the 
present time. Those nets could be shipped, I suppose, from England 
to Canadian ports Avithout that duty. That is a very big item in the 
operation of our ships. We do business by the year and not by the 
trip, and if our market at spasmodic interA^als was to be loAvered 



AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEKElSrCE. 77 

or partially destroyed, our grand average would not be what it is 
to-clay. Altogether I think it costs us — well, I haven't the figures 
exactly, but I think it costs us — one-half more to operate in this 
country than it would cost the Canadians. So, if the}^ come into 
our waters and enter our ports, as suggested, speaking from a 
i:)artisan standpoint, I think it would be harmful. 

Seci'etary Eedfield. Mr. Burns, have you ever figui-ed what the 
difference in cost per hundred pounds per annum is for operating a 
Canadian trawler as compared with those of your own ? 

Mr. Burns. K'o ; I have not. I have had no opportunity to do so. 

Secretary Eedfield. What proportion of the price that you obtain 
for the fish is represented by the Avages of the fishermen? 

Mr. Burns. Well. I could figure that accurately. Mr. Brown has 
stated that he paid the men a certain scale and bonus and paid the 
officers another scale and bonus. It goes from the lower paid men 
up to the captain, all scaled according to the bonus. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have you ever had placed before you an 
actual table showing the actual cost of operation of a Canadian 
trawler ? 

Mr. Burns. I have not. I have seen the scale of wages and 
bonuses. 

Secretary Eedfield. Yes. Is there any difference in the method 
of operating vessels which would offset in any degree the difference 
in the rate of the men? 

Mr. Burns. I didn't get that. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is there any difference in the way of operat- 
ing the vessels Avhich would in any degree offset the difference in 
the wages paid? 

Mr. Burns. Not that I know of. 

Secretaiy Eedfield. How many men do you operate on a beam- 
trawler ? 

Mr. Burns. Twelve. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is the difference in the Avages of the crews 
made up or more than made up by the difference in the wages paid 
the officers? 

Mr. Burns. You mean the general scale, the way it works out in 
comparison ? 

Secretary Eedfield. Yes. 

Mr. Burns. I think it is pretty close. 

Secretary Eedfield. So you think j:he total Avage paid per annum 
per vessel Avould be approximately the same? 

Mr. Burns. W^orks out about the same ; not much difference. 

Secretary Eedfield. Then, what other cases are there operating 
to your disadvantage, as compared Avith a Canadian vessel ? For ex" 
ample, is the price of coal greater here — under ordinary conditions, 
not to-day? 

Mr. Burns. Well, I can only ansAver that for during the Avar. I 
can not say Avhat the prices of coal might have been in comparison. 

Secretary Eedfield. Of course, Ave are not speaking in reply to 
your suggestion, in regard to a Avar measure at all, but are talking 
about a permanent measure. W^ould it make a material difference if 
the duty on the nets Avere reduced ? 

Mr. Burns. It Avould, a great deal. 



78 AMERICAN-CAN ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 

Secretary Redfield. AYho are the inamifactiirers in this country 
of nets of that chai-acter? 

Mr. Burns. There are none. 

Secretary' Eedfield. Then. Avhat do you understand to be the pur- 
pose of the 60 per cent duty ? 

Mr. Burns. It is simply the chissification that we are phiced under. 
These nets are chissified with hair nets, for instance; come nnder 
the same chissification. I shouldn't like to see a woman wearing 
one, but nevertheless that is the classification they conne nnder. 

Secretary Redfieij). Have you made any effort to obtain a reclassi- 
fication in connection with that matter? 

Mr. Burns. We liaAe. We have been working on it for some time. 

Secretary IIedeteld. Then, would it or would it not be a matter of 
relief to your industry if that conld be revised ? 

Mr. Burns. I shonld say that it would be. 

Secretary Eedeield. I would ask the Chief Justice what the facts 
are regarding the relative costs of those nets in Canada and the 
United States? 

Chief Justice HAZi<:N. I don't know. T was going to ask the witness 
what a net costs in Canada and what it costs in the United States. 
Perhaps he does not know. 

Mr. Burns. I conld not say what they cost in Canada, bnt would 
refer to Mr. Otte. who is in charge of that and who conld perhaps 
give n ssome idea of the actual cost. Whether he knows what is being- 
paid in Canada or not, I don't know. What we must do here and 
what, it seems to me. would be of great advantage to our ports along 
the Athnitic coast, wonld be to build np as large a fleet as possible. I 
wonld say that at the present time the United States — I snppose it 
Avas felt that it was absolntely necessary — have taken fonr of our steam 
traAvlers from the port of Boston to protect against mining, etc. 
If it did not have those trawlers the Government wonld not have any 
mine sweepers. They have been n\ine sweeping for a year and have 
been taken away from ns with nothing to replace them. We would 
have been able to bring in millions of pounds of fish if we conld have 
nsecl them. 

Secretary Redeiei.d. I sliall mention that fact to the Secretary of 
the Navy. 

Mr. Burns. Of conrse. we need protection. If we are going to be 
enconraged in bnilding np an iriclependent fleet, whether it is for 
merchant marine or for the fishing business, we mnst have a certain 
amonnt of protection. There is no question abont that. We need 
protection on the coast and we need fishing vessels, and the qnestion 
is to be considered whether this is going to work detrimentally to 
the independent bnilding of ships going from the United States 
ports. Of conrse, we need those vessels. I don't know what they 
wonld have done Avithont ns. Of conrse. our New England ports 
must be protected. 

I wonld now like to call upon Mr. Otte to tell ns what he knows 
about the subject. 

Mr. Found. The nets you speak of are those used on the traAvlers? 

Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Found. Do you knoAv the comparative value of those nets in 
both countries? 



AMEBICAN-CAIsrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 79 

Mr. Burns. No. 

Secretary Eedfield. How big- are they ? 

Mr. Burns. About 90 feet across. 

Coiiiniissioner Found. I understand that these nets are only manu- 
factured at the present time in the okl country. Practically all of 
them are imported by (\\nada and the United States froni Great 
Britain : but the others, gill nets and lines, are practically all imported 
by us from the United States. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do you pay duty to the United States, Mr. 
Found? Is there 'a tariff that you have to pay for the nets vou get 
from the United States, in Canada ( 

Mr. Burns. Not for fishing purposes. 

Secretary Eedfield. You buy your nets in tlie X^iited States and 
get them in free of duty ? 

Mr. Burns. Yes. The nets and lines. I think, are practically all 
imported from the Ignited States — these other nets and lines. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I understand on those that the price paid 
is the same in the United States and Canada. I would like to ask 
Mr. Burns one question. In the case as put it was suggested that the 
American vessels could buy their supplies in Canadian ports. You 
are paying 60 per cent duty, or say there is a duty of GO per cent on 
these trawler nets, and vou sav thev are im])orted into Canada free 
of duty? 

Mr. Burns. No; I didn't say that. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps you said they migiit !;e. 1 thouglit 
3'^ou said thej'^ were. 

Mr. Burns. No. I ke])t away from that question because I doii't 
know about it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That is, you do not make the assertion be- 
cause you do not really know. But, of course, in tlie case put by the 
Secretary, if United States vessels are permitted to purchase supplies 
as the Canadians do, in Canadian ports, they would be able to pur- 
chase nets in Canada at the same price as Canadian vessels? 

Mr. Burns. Yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. That is the proposition. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And perhaps your Gox-ernment would con- 
sider removing the duty, as it does not protect anybody. 

Secretary Eedfield. I suppose the proposition" is clear that if the 
Canadian Government opens its ports to motor vessels, steam vessels, 
fishing vessels, and removes the license of $1.50 a ton and substitutes 
a nominal license of $1 per annum per ship, that Avould carrv with 
it the privilege of purchasing supplies of every kind and nature in 
Canadian ports, at the price there prevailing". So vessels of each 
Government would have the advantage of the prices in the ports of 
the other. If a thing, therefore, was cheaper in Canada, it would be 
bought there ; if it was cheaper in the United States, it would be 
bought there. 

Mr. Brown. In reference to the last question the gentleman asked 
me, I think there was a misunderstanding in rega'rd to Canadian 
vessels coming into Canadian ports and American vessels going into 
Canada to sell fish. 

Mr. Sweet. Not only to sell fish, but for all puiposes. 
Mr. Brown. I thought I made myself clear, as far as the fishing is 
concerned, would like to see the same old rule go on. 



80 AMEEICAX-CAXADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEEXCE. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Of course, if the present modus vivendi 
were discontinued, not extended, that would simply throw the thing 
back to the treaty of 1818, so that American vessels could only enter 
our ports for four purposes — shelter, repairs, wood, and water. 
What would you say, then? 

Mr. Bkown. Well, all I can say is this, Mr. Chairman and gentle- 
men, that our American capitalists might have to make up the needs 
of American fishermen — supplying more bait — putting the bars down 
in a way, so that we could gel all the fish we wanted in Massachu- 
setts waters, bays, and rivers, and wouldn't have to go to Nova 
Scotia for much bait. 



STATEMENT OF ME. HENSY OTTE, MANAGER OP THE MARINE 
DEPARTMENT OF THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. 

Secretarv Eedfield. You heard what Mr. Burns said about the 
nets ? 

Mr. Otte. I think the question was relative to the cost of the nets 
to-day. 

Secretarv Eedfieed. Yes: that was one question. 

Mr. Otte. In round figures, I think a net to-day costs $260. 

Secretary Redeield. How big is the net? 

Mr. Otte. One hundred and twenty feet across the mouth and with 
a depth of 180 feet. It is commonly known as No. 1. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know what the price of a similar net 
in Canada is to-day? 

Mr. Otte. I do not. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact that any disadvantage, if 
there be one, would be removed if you were free to buy them in 
Canada and outfit a vessel from there in that respect, if you desired 
to do so? 

Mr. Otte. There would be a saving on the cost of the nets, although 
I will say that we enjoyed free entry of those nets under the Panama 
Canal act until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury revised 
that rule and made a different ruling, the net being put on a 35 per 
cent basis under clause — I don't remember what it was now. 

Secretary Redfield. Is that the amount of duty to-day — 35 per 
cent ? 

Mr. Otte. Then, the same department revised the ruling again and 
classified nets under a class which covered hair nets and such finely, 
which is being protected at the present time. 

Secretary Redfield. In what way and before whom? 

Mr. Otte. Before the Customs Board of Appeals, and I believe it 
comes ujD in April. 

Secretarv Redfield. How Ioro- has that ruling been in effect, 
Mr. Otte?" 

Mr. Otte. That ruling has been in effect since, I believe — well, 
this is simply hearsay — but about a year, perhaps. 

Secretarv Redfield. How manv nets have vou bought durine: that 
year, Mr. Otte? 

Mr. Otte. About 150 nets, and as many spare parts which, if put 
together, would make a similar quantity. 



AMEEICAN-CAN-ADIAiS" FISHERIES CONFEBEISrCE. 81 

Secretai^y Eedfield. On which the 60 per cent duty has been 
involved ? 

Mr. Otte. Practically. 

Secretary Redfield. And about what is the consumption of nets? 

Mr. Otte. The natural consumption, I think, is 15 nets per annum 
per vessel, and with 7 vessels there Avould be 81 to 100 nets per 
annum. 

Secretary Redfield. So you wish me to understand that those 
you have bought under the larger duty would approximate a year 
and a half's consumption? 

Mr. Otte. Yes; I should say so. 

Mr. Burns. And you might mention the chances of loss. 

Mr. Otte. Oh, yes. We had one shipment that never arrived, 
owing to unfortunate circumstances. The vessel was lost at sea 
while the};^ were in transportation, and we figure that from the time 
an order is placed it is 6 to 8 months before we receive a deliver}^ of 
the goods. 

Secretary Redfield. In that respect is there au}^ difference be- 
tween yourselves and the Canadians? 

Mr. Otte. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. BuRxs. Our whole fleet consists of seven boats, operating. 

Mr. Otte. I am talking about seven boats operating. 

Secretary Redfield. What, in detail, so far as you can give it, in 
the relative order of their importance, are the disadvantages under 
which you labor in competing with a Canadian vessel of the same 
size and type? 

Mr. Otte. I can speak only relatively as to the actual increased 
cost of operation of our owm vessels. As to the exact comparative 
increased cost of our vessels as compared with Canadian vessels I 
have not posted myself sufficiently to anwer that question in the 
manner j^ou would like. I can not give you the relative operating 
expenses of the Canadian vessels, because I don't know. Therefore 
1 can not give you the comparative disadvantages or advantages that 
might accrue if the steam trawders received the privileges of entering 
Canadian ports either for selling, refitting or getting supplies. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you think it would be advantageous to 
you to have the privilege of entering Canadian ports and having the 
same freedom therein that the Canadian vessels have ?. 

Mr. Otte. I can not say, as far as steam trawlers are concerned, 
because in the past 12 years' operation of our vessels we have used 
our natural home market, which was capable of supplying our fleet 
in such a manner as to keep them operating as nearly 100 per cent 
of efficiency as it was possible to do so. 

Secretary Redfield. Have your vessels never had occasion to enter 
Canadian JDorts and apply for special licenses? 

Mr. Otte. We have only had occasion to do so in emergenc3^ One 
case I remember, where the chief engineer was injured at sea and 
received aid at Halifax; and there was another occasion, perhaps 
two or three in the life of the company, on account of weather con- 
ditions. Then, two of our vessels out of Canso and Digby cooperated 
down there last summer in connection with producing food for the 
allies. 

51950—18 6 



82 AMEEICAjN^-CA^^ADIAK- fisheries CONFEEEN'CE. 

Secretai'v Rv^DFiELn. Do yon confirm what Mr. Burns said, that it 
is a fact tliat on the Canadian vessels the officers are paid a higher 
compensation, but tliat the crew are not paid quite as hirge a com- 
pensation, and that upon the whole the total wage cost would be 
approximately^ the same? 

Mr. Otte. I would not personally confirm that as a fact. I Avonld 
sa3% from such meager knowledge as I have obtained, that that is 
the case. 

Secretary Eedfield. What coal do you use on your ships? 

^Ir. Otte. Bituminous. 

Secretai'v Redfield. From where? 

Mr. Otte. From New River mines (n- PocalK)ntas mines. West 
Virginia. 

Mr. Burns. From anywhere. 

Mr. Otte. But at present we are getting what Ave can. 

Secretary Redfield. Anything you can get. I suppose. 

Mr. Otte. It is called " coal.'' 

Secretary Redfield. Have you any knowledge Avhether you have 
to pay more or less for fuel than a Oanadian vessel? 

Mr. Otte. Yes; I have. In one particular instance, in the month 
of November, brought a ncAv vessel from ManitoAvoc "Wis., to Boston, 
and this A^essel stopped at Port Hastings for coal. I believe, if I 
remember the figures correctly, the price was $().T5 a ton tliere. We 
Avere paying at that time $9.25. While the price of our coal at $9.25 
seems a great deal more than the $6.75 at Port Hastings, in my 
opinion the quality of the coal I receixed at $9.25 Avas such that it 
Avas probably one-third cheaper than the other. 

Secretary Redfield. Speaking noAv of Pocahontas coal? 

Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. 

Secretary" Redfield. $9.25 is pretty liigh for Pocahontas coal in 
ordinary times? 

Mr. Otte. Very high. 

Secretary Redfield. Hoav high Avould it run in ordinary times as 
to price? I have used a great many thousand tons of it myself. 

Mr. Otte. In the A'icinity of $4— ^as low as $3.75 for bunker coal. 
This is a different proposition from rail coal. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; but even then you speak of the Poca- 
hontas coal as the cheaper coal? 

Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. So thei'e would be no disadvantage against 
you on the ground of fuel there? 

Mr. Otte. No. 

Secretary Redfield. x\re you able to state any other respects in 
Avhich the Canadian vessel has an advantage over you, ]5articularly 
if the bars Avere removed and a'ou Avere free to go into any Canadian 
port, if you saAv fit, and buy at their prices? Would there then be, 
in your judgment, any disadA'antage to you; and if so, Avhat? 

Mr. Otte. Why, I have not seen the necessity arise for our fleet to 
enter any Canadian port for any purpose, outside of Avhat I liaA e re- 
ferred to in the brief statement I haA^e made. Our oi^eration for 
years has been wholly confined to American ports, and perhaps for 
that reason I have not made as close a studA^ of Avhat mip'ht occur. 



AMERICAN-CAISrADrAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEIS^CE. 83 

Secretary Redfield. That is undoubtedly correct, but it was not 
quite my question. 

Mr. Otte. Perliaps I did not quite get it. 

Secretary Eedeield. Assuming, under the proposed phin, that you 
are free to go, if you wish, into a Canadian port, if you find it to 
your advantage to do so, so that whatever price a Canadian trawler 
gets in its own port is open also to .you, and vice versa, under those 
circumstances what are the disadvantages under Avhich j'^ou would 
labor? 

Mr. Otte. Does this question cover the sale of the products? 

Secretary Redfield. I am talking about the operation of the ves- 
sel, now. It would also be a fact, however, that if there vvere an 
advantageous Canadian market you would, under those circum- 
stances, be able to take advantage of it, and if there was an advanta- 
geous American market you would be able to take advantage of it. 
I am speaking of an entirely open arrangement. 

Mr. Otte. I doubt if it would Avork out. I do understand that at 
the present time, however, there is a Canadian duty on fish brought 
in by an American vessel of a cent a pound and that, of course, would 
be a disadvantage to American vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. Of conrse, that is a sales proposition. I am 
referring to the operation of the ship. 

Mr. Otte. I thought you meant that we would have a market in 
Canadian ports for the fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, of course, you Avould have the oppor- 
tunity to take adva^itage of that nuirket, if it existed. 
, Mr. Otte. It couldn't exist, under the duty conditions. 

Secretaiy Redfield. That would depend on the market prices. 

Mr. Otte. Well, they would still have the advantage of us, with 
the duty. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, of course, we can change our own duty 
at any time we see fit. Tariffs are not involved in this discussion. 

Mr. Otte. I understand that, but that is a point of fact to be con- 
sidered. I don't understand whether there would be an advantage 
one way or the other, materially, under your question. 

Mr. Sweet. It occurs to me that perhaps in Canada, as well as 
here, gentlemen engaged in the industry Avill give us their impres- 
sions as to the expense of operation, etc. That would be a very 
natural thing to do. I want to ask you if there is anybody here 
that you knoAv of, engaged in the industry or otherAvise, Avho could 
make out for us a statement of actual expense of operation, going 
back, perhaps, for several years, taking in normal conditions rather 
than Avar conditions, so that we might then get the same figures, 
perhaps, from Canadians, and make a more just comparison than is 
possible from hearing the impressions of people stated. Each side, 
perhaps, may have a tendency to consider that its OAvn relative ex- 
penses are more than those of other people. There may be an im- 
pression on their part that they are at a disadvantage and on our 
part that we are at a disadvantage, and perhps if Ave had the exact 
figures Ave Avould find that the equality was much greater than we 
could imagine. Is there anybody you know of here Avho could give 
us figures of that kind, making a sort of statement that we could 
put into the rocord? 



84 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Otte. In connection with sailing vessels, I think several con- 
cerns in Gloucester would be competent to give you statistics dating 
several years back on sailing vessels. I believe there is a possibility 
that the Bay State Fishing Co. could also give j^ou figures on the 
operation of steam trawlers. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask you or Mr. Burns this 
question. We full}^ understand the privacy that prevails in busi- 
ness matters, and there is no desire to make such matters public 
where there is no right or wrong involved at all. But can you not 
furnish us something of this nature? We have in our Lighthouse 
Service one hundred and forty and odd vessels operated, and we have 
the exact cost of wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, every other item, 
per mile run of every ship, so that we can tell precisely, taking each 
ship of one size, for example, precisely what such vessel costs per 
mile run in any year back, for 8 or 10 years; and we can tell, 
therefore, whether the ship is economically operated, where the work 
is of a similar character to that of other ships. Can you furnish 
us something of that nature, which, if furnished, would be confi- 
dential as far as the commission is concerned? I must, of course, 
let everything we have be made clear to our Canadian associates on 
the commission, but as far as publication is concerned, if the matter 
were one of privacy, for any reason, it would not be made public. 

Mr. Otte. I doubt if we would have as elaborate figures as you 
have described, because we have never had the facilities at hand to 
go into details in that way, in building up from small beginnings to 
what we have to-day. But we would be glad to give whatever in- 
formation we can. 

Mr. Saveet. I understand that what you have said refers particu- 
larly to traAvlers? 

Mr. Otte. Absolutely. 

Mr. Sweet. And not to other kinds of fishing vessels; and you 
say that the advantage of going into Canadian ports, that sort of 
thing, does not apply to trawlers as to the other vessels. Is that what 



you say 



Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. They don't use bait, so that privilege would amount 
to nothing. But there are other kinds of fishing engaged in by 
people of our own country quite extensively to which the advantage 
would be greater than to trawlers of admission to Canadian ports? 
That is true? 

Mr. Otte. Yes; but I couldn't talk on that subject. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Burns, will you furnish us with a table 
of operation costs on the basis suggested? 

Mr. Burns. Mr. Secretarj^, we shall be very glad to do what we 
can. Our records are pretty public. We don't try to deceive any- 
body, although the United States Government might at other times 
seek to indict us for what thej noAv ask us to do. That would seem 
to be a contradiction of theirs. But we shall be glad to give you our 
operating costs. Of course, we don't want to have too much get to 
our brothers the Canadians, because they are bound to be our com- 
petitors ultimately. But I can not understand how it would help the 
commission, for the reason that there ha^e been very few steam 
trawlers operating out of Canadian ports. It is only recently that 



AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. 85 

they have been operating — I think a matter of a couple of years. 
The first j^ear of the war they were operating very little, and now 
they have several more trawlers, either chartered or owned by 
Canadians. These trawlers are coming over here under charter. I 
don't know whether they are working independently^ or not. But 
that is where the great competitive factor is coming, mostly from the 
other side. It was our impression before the war that it cost us twice 
as much to build a trawler as it cost in England, and that was one 
heavy setback — what it cost us to get a vessel ready for sea. But if 
those figures would be of any service to you I have no doubt our com- 
pany would be glad to turn them over to the commission. 

Secretary Redfield. I ask you to do so, Mr. Burns, with the under- 
standing that, while they will have to be known to our Canadian col- 
leagues on the commission, they will not be made public in this 
country or in Canada without your consent; and, in general, I will 
say, too, gentlemen, that if there are facts which in your judgment 
bear upon the discussion of any of these questions in which there is 
no principle involved that requires their public use they can be 
handed in confidence to the commission and will be made known to 
all of its members, but the confidence will be respected. 

STATEMENT BY MR. ARTHUR L. MILLETT, OF THE BOARD OF 
FISH COMMISSIONERS OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. MiLLE'rr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question, for 
information, if I may. I would ask if it is in the province of this 
conference to decide anything regarding a proposed extension of the 
3-mile limit to 12 miles on the part of Canada, on the beam trawlers? 

Mr. Found. Extend it from 3 miles to 12 miles? 

Mr. MiLLETT. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. That is a matter new to me, Mr. Millett. 

Mr. Found. If I may explain that, as far as Canada is con- 
cerned, it applies entirely, and can only apply, to trawlers operat- 
ing from Canada as a base. Canada's jurisdiction, internationally, 
of course ceases at the territorial limit of 3 miles from shore. But 
with a vie^y to protecting certain inshore boat fishermen during cer- 
tain times in the year, in cases where certain of our trawlers would 
otherwise be dragging up their hand lines, we have refused privi- 
leges to our oAvn trawlers unless they undertake to fish not closer than 
12 miles from shore at certain times in the year. Of course, that 
prohibition could not be extended to vessels beyond the Canaclian 
jurisdiction. 

jMr. Millett. I take issue with you in that matter, because I have 
personal knowledge of a steam trawler belonging to the United States 
sailing out of Boston, making a catch, going to Halifax, and being 
obliged by the collector at Halifax to sign a paper to the effect that 
he would not do that sort of thing. He was asked to sign such a 
paper for the year. 

Mr. Found. That is, a trawler operating out of Halifax? 

Mr. Millett. No. 

Mr. Found. Then it is quite obvious that it was beyond the right 
of any officer in Halifax to do that. He would be going beyond his 
rights. That is a regulation that is only applied, and can"^ only be 
applied, to Canadian vessels.. In fact, I "think I have the regulation 
here. 



86 AMEEICAX-CANADIAIsr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE, 

Secretary Redfield. While Mr. Found is looking for the regula- 
tion, Mr. Millett, you say you have personal knowledge of that? 

Mr. Millett. Yes, sir ; knowledge first hand from the skipper, the 
captain of the vessel. 

Secretar}^ Eedfield. You mean that the skipper told you so ? 

Mr. Millett. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. So that is your first-hand knowledge, the 
statement of the skipper? 

Mr. Millett. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. What vessel was it? 

Mr. Millett. The Seal. 

Secretary Redfield. When did this take placet 

Mr. Millett. Within six weeks, just after the Halifax disaster. 

Secretary Redfield. Give us the full statement of the captain, all 
the details, bearing in mind, of course, the fact that in view of the 
statement the commission will call upon tlie collector at Halifax to 
state his side of the case. 

Mr. Millett. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. In order to have the record complete and not 
ex parte. But will you be good enough to state all the facts as the 
captain stated them. By the way, is the captain here? 

Mr. Millett. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, state the case as fully as you can. 

Mr. Millett. I think it was something like this. The captain put 
into the j^ort of Halifax some time after the disaster, not knowing 
anything about the disaster. Of course he was cast down by the 
calamity. In the course of his business he Avent to the customhouse, 
and he tells me that while there the collector or the deputy, I Avon't 
say which, but I think he said the collector, produced this document 
and asked him if he w^ould sign it. The captain asked him what it 
was, and they talked it over. He was asked to sign this agreement 
not to fish within 12 miles of the Canadian coast for a year, and in 
repl.y he said, as he tells me, '^ My friend, Mr. Collector, I can not 
tie this vessel n]3. I do not ov/n her. There is a couple of hundred 
thousand dollars here at stake. But I will tell you what I will do. I 
Avill be a good fellov\^ about it and sign it for this trip if that is any 
good to 3^ou,'" which he did. 

Secretary Redfield. What v/as the consideration for the agree- 
ment ? 

Mr. Millet*]'. None. That is why I ask you, Mr. Secretary, sitting 
here in this matter, to take that into consideration. 

Secretary Redfield. Certainly. Then I understand your state- 
Fiient to be that without any consideration at all a Canadian officer 
asked the captain of an American vessel to enter into an agreement 
not to fish in waters that both parties knew were not under the 
jurisdiction of Canada ? 

Mr. Millett. Yes, sir; within 12 miles. 

Secretary Redfield. And you accept that statement as probably 
correct, Mr. Millett? 

Mr. Millett. I should have no hesitancy in doing so, sir — know- 
ing the man. 

Secretary Redfield, And is it not a fact that the agreement when 
sia'necl was null and void? 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEIsrCE. 87 

Mr. MiLLETT. That is what I don't know. I am not a hiwyer. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is it not a fact that if we required such an 
agreement in the port of Boston from the captain of a Canadian 
A'essel, he would tear it up, and that there would be no ])Ower under 
the law to enforce such an agreement ? 

Mr. MiLLETT. I don't know about it. 

Secretary Eedfield. But, pardon me, isn't that fundamental, this 
being a case outside of the territorial limits? 

Mr. MiLLETT. Well, I didn't know but Avhat the collector was try- 
ing to enforce the 12-mile provision of the North Sea convention,- 
and, if so, I thought it is a maiter that might be taken up here. 

Chief Justice Hazen. There is no such intention on Canada's part. 

Mr. MiLLETT. Well, that is a matter that was brought to my at- 
tention, and I thought that this would be the time to thresh it out. 

Mr. Found (reading) : 

Tlie inasier of evei-y stejun trawler a1 any port on tlie Atlantic sealxianl of 
Canada shall before departure come i)efore the collector of customs, or other 
])roper otticer,, and deliver to him a report outwards under his hand of the 
destination of such vessel, stating her name, country and tonnage, the port 
of i-egistry. the njune of the master, the name of the owners, and the number 
of the crew, and such other pai'ticulars as are demanded by such officer. 

The report outwai'ds shall also ccmtain a declaration to the effect that the 
master of the steam trawler, in considertition of the clearance granted by 
the officer of customs, undertakes and agrees to restrict all steam operations 
by such steam trawler to waters which are at least 12 miles distant from the 
nearest shore on tiie Atlantic seaboard of Canada, during tlie calendar year in 
which the clearance is granted. 

That is a regulation iruide under the authority of the customs act 
on the 6th of April, 1915, and that was amended so as to apph^ from 
January to May 1 in certain watei's. 

Mr. MiLLETT. How can they ask an American skipper to sign that. 

Mr. Found. If that was clone, no doubt it was a mistake on the 
l^art of the collector of customs at Halifax. The reason for the 
regulation, as far as Canada is concerned, is undoubtedly the reason 
that has been stated. That is, these trawlers were operating around 
near the coast, largely for haddock. There were hand-line fisher- 
men operating trawls, as has been stated, and they. were having their 
trawls torn up by the steam trawlers. But in the case of vessels 
other than Canaclian vessels, operating outside the three-mile limit 
we have no jjower to stop their doing it. But there were vessels 
operating from Canso and other Canadian ports — Canadian ves- 
sels — and it was to control those during that particular time of the 
year that the regulation Avas made. 

Mr. MiLLETT. I v/ill say that there are other men in the room Avho 
can corroborate my statement, and so I have brought the matter up. 
As is well known, there are places like Cape jSTorth, Ingonish, and 
Scatteree, where the chances for American fishermen to fish are very 
valuable. If we are going to have some such limit as this put on it 
we should know it. There is a great deal of spring fishing there, as 
well as at other times in the year. If we are going to be kept 12 
miles off. you know that we can not go 12 miles off and get fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We have no power to keep your vessels or 
the vessels of aii}^ other nationality 12 miles olf the shore. We have 
a right to do so within 3 miles of our shores, the same as vou haA^e 



SS \A1 i:UU' A \ TA NADl \ N I' I S 1 1 I'llJI IIS CO N VM'".K1''.X(""K. 

tho riii'hl (o U(>oi> o(hor> nwny iVom your slioros for a dislanro of ;> 
luilos. but (1\m( is !ill. 

Mr. Mu.MVir. 'I'luU is w lui^ I (hoiiiilil. 

Chiof ,Ius(i('i' IIazkn. AVi* havo no jui-isdiclion to do «Ulu>r\viso. 

SiH'i'olary Kkdkiki.o. 1 will ask a furlhor (iiioslion at this point. 
iiuisnuK'li as Mr. Millott has hrouoht (ho luattoi' ui), so that wo may 
hnvo \i pori'ootly cU^ar in our minds. Mr. CMiiof Justioo, is it not 
a ftiot that if tho Canadian ooikH'tor of ouslon\s al Halifax nunlo 
such ;i ivquironiont it was null and \o\i\ whon it was mado ^ 

Chiof Justioo IIazkj^. Absolutoly. 

Dr. Sautii. I wn)uld liko to ask this qnostion -Avhilo tho matter is 
up, in oi-ilor (hat 1 may ho j)orfootly oloar about it. If this rooula- 
(ion o\' tho Canadian (u)vornmont is intondod to apply only to 
Canadian \ossols. what is the siii'niiioanoo of tho loqniromeut that the 
master <d' such \ossol shall sio-n this paper, li'ivinii" the name of the 
vessel, tho count I'y o\' \\\o ow nor>, the tonnajiv, and other items, which 
indicate that some other country than Canada, may be involved^ 

Ml-. FovNo. The trawlers that were ojierating- at that time be- 
lonaod to some extent in (ireat l^ritain and were operatino- nnder an 
aiiroomont of sale of catch to certain hrms in Canso. Therefore, this 
was worded so as to apply to sjich vessels, oporatinii' from a Canadian 
base, as snch. The only way we could get at these trawlers would be 
when they eame back again with their oatoh. So it was intended to 
cover tlu>so vessels comino- in aiul ont fi'om a t^anadian povt. 

STATEMENT OF MK. FRED L. DAVIS. PRESIDENT GLOUCESTER 

BOARD OF TRADE. 

Ml-. l>A\\s. Ml'. Chairman. I only rise to I'ontirm partly the report 
made by Mr. Millott rolatixo to this trawler. 1 got the same inftunna- 
(ion. i (hink Mr. Millott failed to make one statement relative to 
this, which gives the real pith of the whole matter. It is that this 
vessel went into Halifax for water and was refused tho water unless 
the captain signed this agreement. He was out of water and he went 
in to replenivsli his water, and was refused the water unless he signed 
this agreement, and he refused to sign it for more than one trip. He 
said. " 1 am the captain on this vessel for this trip ai\d don't know 
anything alnuu what is proposed further than this trip. I don't 
kn«nv what the owners may want to do wiih the vessel. I will sign it 
tor this (rip. because I have uti intentitni of tishing. anyway." 

Secretary Rkofiklo. Where does your infiUMuation come from? 

Mr. Davis. From the owners and ^he captain. 

Secretary TvKniMKi.n. Where did the owners get thcii- information ? 

Mr. Danis. 1 presume from tho captain. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG. OF GLOUCESTER. 

('apt. \'oi NO. Mr. Chairman, the captain was Henry Atwood. and 
that is the statement he gave me. Of course. I know him very well. 
He went in for water, and when he went io the customs they asked 
hin\ to sign this docuu\ent not to tish inside the I'J-mile lin\it for a 
year. The steamer was the Seal. 

Dr. SMvrn. Of Boston? 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 89 

Capt. Young. Of Gloucester. 

Secretarj^ Eedfield. And did he tell .you who the officer was who 
made that request? 

Capt. Young. No; because when we go to the custondiouse at Hali- 
fax we don't try to find out about who particular officers are. Of 
course, there is another thing- that ought to be taken into considera- 
tion, and that is that this was at the time of the disaster at Halifax. 

Secretary Eedfield. Was the captain sure that the particular per- 
son who made this request knew that it was an American vessel? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir. The captain is a pretty fair business man. 
has been in the business for a number of years. 

Secretary Eedfield. How long had he been on that job? 

Capt. Young. This was his first trip on the job. 

Secretary Eedfield. How long had he been fishing? 

Capt. Young. Oh, fishing perhaps 20 to 25 years. 

Mr. Burns. I have no doubt that everybody here in the fish busi- 
ne-s Avill vouch for Capt. Atwood's integrity. 

Secretary Eedfield. There is no question about that, not at all. 
But the thing that astonishes me is that the captain, with his experi- 
ence, should not have known that this could not be done. I take it 
that everybody who has had anything to do with the sea at all vvould 
know that a document like that after it was signed Avovdd not l)e 
worth anything, that it could be innnediately torn up and tbat no 
power would exist anywhere in the world to enforce it. We have 
just heard the honorable Chief Justice say that. The thing is on its 
face so foolish, so absurd, to my mind, as to bear on its face evidence 
that it was a blunder of the man, the individual. Certainly exevy 
seafaring man knows — and I know myself. becaU;Se. although not a 
seafaring man, I have had to do with seafaring men for nuiny 
years — ^very seafaring man I ever had to do with knows that the 
right of a nation to enforce its domestic laws cease at 3 miles 
offshore. If the I'^nited States, through Congress, passed a hnv 
regulating what should be done outside of that 3-mile limit, and 
should instruct the Department of Commerce to enforce it. and we 
did enforce it through our officers in this court of Boston, it w^ould 
be perfectly worthless. No nation on earth can do a thing of that 
kind; and I am a little bit surprised, gentlemen, that none of you 
appears to have told the captain so. 

Mr. Davis. I don't think it is so surprising. J\lr. Chaiirnan. 
When our men go down into Nova Scotia watei's with their vessels 
and go into harbors, they feel that they must live u]i to the rules. 

Secretary Eedfield. Well, that was not a rule. It was null and 
void. 

Mr. Davis. That is all right, but Ave have had trouble there, a good 
many people have had trouble there. When a thing is put up to you, 
you do the best thing you can. If you telegraph to the United 
States for any assistance, yon are held u]3 for awhile. 

Secretary Eedfield. Another question — he refused to sign the 
paper ? 

Mr. Davis. For a year. 

Secretary Eedfield. Did he get a clearance? 

Mr. Davis. He did. 

Secretary Eedfield. How do you account for the fact that he got 
a clearance after he refused to sign the paper? 



90 AMEKICANT-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

^Ir. Da>is. He signed the paper for one trip. 
Chief Justice Hazen. Made a compromise. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. So we understood that there is in existence 
this document signed bv the captain agreeing for one trip not to do 

this? ^ . ^ . '' 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfteld. It must be in existence in the customhouse 
in Halifax, I suppose. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Without an}'- question, the official at Hali- 
fax made a mistake. This paper will probably be found on the 
records. 

-Secretary Redfieed. In the meantime I think you can take the 
assurance of his honor the chief justice that there is no power on the 
part of any Government to do such a thing. 

Mr. Found. And officers will be so instructed that there will be no 
repetition of it. 

Capt. Young. What would it mean, taking out a license in Canada? 

Chief Justice Hazen. It would mean that any fishing vessel rep- 
resentative would go to any customhouse on the Nova Scotia or New 
Brunswick coast, pay a dollar for a license, and that that avouIcI 
entitle the vessel to sell fish and entitle it to the same privileges that 
our vessels have. 

Capt. Young. Can it sell fish free of duty ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. The (|nestion of duty is not being raised 
here. The question of tarilf is one for each country, and it is not 
being raised in this inquiry. 

Capt. Young. Well, that is the question. Can we sell fish without 
duty there? What is the reason why you ask us to pay a dollar 
license fee for our vessels'^ I vrould like to have that explained. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We are giving 3^ou a privilege in our ports 
and are doing it by way of license for that merely nominal sum, $1 
a yeai'. 

Capt. Young. But you put a restriction on us bj^ a license. Wlw 
not have it the same as in America — come into our ports and do just 
as you like? I believe in that. But wh}^ not do the same to us down 
in Canada? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would you have objection to paying a 
dollar for a license fee? 

Capt. Young. But there is no duty on fish in America. What is 
the reason Avhy you want to charge us a dollar? That is a question 
we can not understand in Gloucester. When the board comes cloAvn 
there they will want to find out the reason for paying the license fee. 
For instance, if you don't want to give us a license, you haven't got 
to do so, ancl then you might want to take the license from us to 
morrow, and you could do it. It has been done. 

Secretary Redfield. I understand that the difficulty in your mind 
is in having to pay a dollar a year? 

Capt. Young. Yes: it isn't" the dollar at all; not the dollar, but 
the principle of paying the dollar for the license. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You see, one of the difficulties in the matter 
at the present time is that there is a treaty. Under that treaty you 
have the right to come into our ports for certain purposes. It is 
proposed, by making an agreement, to override that tjreaty. There- 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 91 

fore we say to you, " Come into our ports and have all the advantages 
Ave ha^•e;' That is what is proposed ; that is what is being discussed 
here. I don't say that that will be agreed to here or that we will 
agree to it. There is simply an attempt being made to arrive at a 
proper agreement between both countries, we representing our hsh- 
ermen and your commissioners representing yours. There must be a 
mutual agreement, must be mutual concessions, of course. So we 
say, " Here is the treaty, which we can override by an agreement, it 
you will pay a dollar a year as a license fee, you can come into our 
ports and enjov the advantages that our vessels enjoy. As tar as 
amount is concerned, it makes no difference whether it is a dollar or 
a cent. The idea is simplv to allow the American vessels to come 
into our ports. 

Capt. YouNCx. But under the treaty we must enter and clear. 

Chief Justice Hazen. This whole thing is a matter for considera- 
tion, of course. It is a very proper question for you to raise. Captain, 
and a proper question for consideration. 

Capt. Young. It handicaps all fishermen a little bit. We go into 
a Nova Scotia port for bait, and then we also have to buy a license. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Let us see how this would work out. prac- 
tically. You go and enter when you visit ports — go to the custom- 
house ? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And when you enter you say that you want 
a license, and hand over a dollar' and the collector hands you a 
license. Is there any delay about that ? 

Capt. Young. Sometimes a little delay. 

Chief Justice Hazen. How much? 

Capt. Young. According to where you are. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You have to have some delay in making the 
entry, anyway? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And in making the entry you have to see 
the collector or the officer there, and he issues the license. So I don't 
see why that makes any additional delay. 

Mr. "Saveet. Your point is that it is not done in one country and 
has to be done in the other? 

Capt. Young. Yes ; I like to get fifty-fifty. [Laughter.] _ 

Chief Justice Hazen. You have raised a proper question. Cap- 
tain. 

Mr. Sweet. And, in the final analysis, I would like to raise this 
question: Whether it is advisable for either country to require a 
license to be given. It might be better to eliminate it entirely in both 
countries. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Before leaving the subject let nie simply 
repeat what Mr. Found, the superintendent of fisheries in Canada, 
has said here, that if it shall appear that the customs officer_ Id Hali- 
fax made a mistake — and it is admitted to be a mistake, if it was 
flone — he will be instructed not to malre similar mistakes in the 
future, and similar instructions will be given genei-ally to the cus- 
toms officers. 



9*2 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FlSllKHIKS CDNFKKEXCE. 

Mr. ^liLLK/rr. Of course, it wtis not a matter of any consequence to 
me personally. It has come to my attention, and l' simply brought 
it up here. 

Secretary Kr.nnKi.n. And vo arc ahul to have you hriui)- it up. 

Chief flustice Hazkn. It is one of those things that causes a cer- 
tain auuMint of irritation and annoyance, and should not have oc- 
curred. Steps will be taken to prevent anything of the sort in the 
future. 

Mr. Burns. And Ave should take the disaster into consideration 
and excuse it. Of course, everybody was probably Avorked up at that 
time. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. M. H. NICKERSON. 

Oapt. NiCKEusoN. Mr. Cduurman. will you allow me to say a word 
at this time? T think it is absolutely necessary to maintain the integ- 
rity of the old treaty. There is an old instnuuent dating back to the 
days of (leorgc 111. just 100 years ago. that is in full force to-day. 
and the nunhis vivendi Avas merely a rider Avhich suspended its full 
operations, as has been explained here. Xow, if the Canadian provi- 
sion should admit an American tishing boat to those privileges with- 
out the payment of a nominal sum of $1. it is clear that that would 
be overriding the whole treaty, which Canada is not competent to do. 
as the United Stares and Great Britain Avere the only signatories to 
that convention. I think that view of it is correct. Mr. Chief 
Justice? 

Chief Justice Hazkn. 1 think that is one vieAv of it. Captain. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. H. C. WILBUR, 

Mr. "Wu.Bi i{. Mr. Chairuian. I understand from Avhat has been 
stated here that Canada has a restriction Avhich it attempts to enforce 
outside its territorial limits against its oAvn traAvlers through a 
restriction in connection Avith the issuance of a license. Thaf has 
been coupled here Avith the stateraent of the order or regidation 
Avhich Avas read by Commissioner Smith, in regard to the uutster of 
the vessel giving to the authorities the name of the A'essel. the eoiui- 
try. and so on. It seems to me. as I heard that read, that the cus- 
toms official in Canada construed the laAv as his mind understood it. 
He really acted in accordance Avith the letter of the hiAv. as it reads, 
although he Avas mistaken in his application of it. But this is the 
suggestion I have in mind noAV relevant to that question. If Canada 
can enforce such a provision, by refusing to license traAvlers unless 
they agree to comply Avith it, at certain times in the year, Avhy is 
that not in the interests of the felloAv who goes in for hand lining, 
and Avhy cotdd not something of the sort be done here I In talking 
about traAvlers. Ave have perhaps overlooked the other felloAv. Xow, 
I do not undei-stand that that restriction in regard to the 12-mile 
limit is violated by the Canadian traAvlers. if they submit to that 
condition, and I believe in this era of good feeling, in Avhich it is 
proposed to deal with questions that have been bothering the people 
of both countries a gocxl deal in the past, it might not be Avell for 
this coinitry to take some action along that line. We Avill all. then, 
be in the same boat, and the hand-liner Avill be protected. If they 
can prt.tect their hand-liners up thei'e by a mere restriction apply^ 



AMERICAlSr-CAlSrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 93 

ing- between the 3-mile territorial limit and the 12-mile limit, Avhy 
can not we do it? The trawler is not harmed, and certainly the 
small fellow is protected. 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is an excellent idea. 

STATEMENT BY EOEMER STATE EEPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM E. 
DOYLE, OE EAST BOSTON. 

Mr. Doyle, Mr. Chairman, I simply desire to call the attention 
of the commission and of the Secretary himself to the lobster situa- 
tion. We have heard statements here in regard to the situation on 
the Maine, coast and in Nova Scotia. I think the only Avay that the 
lobster business can be kept going, the only future for the lobster 
business, lies in a permanent understanding between both countries 
as to what size lobsters can be caught. Maine has a 10^-inch law; 
Massachusetts has a 9-inch law. I believe the future of the lobster 
industy, if it is to have a future, lies along the Nova Scotia coast. 
But Canada, Nova Scotia, have canneries taking lobsters but 4 or 5 
inches long and canning them for export. Those are the lobsters 
that should be saved. 

Secretary Eedfield. Where is that? 

Mr. Doyle. I have been there and have seen it mj^self, personally, 
all over Nova Scotia. I have seen them canning 4 and 5-inch tinkers, 
millions of them, Mr. Secretary, and there lies the future of the 
lobster industry. We are the port of entry for the lobsters of Nova 
Scotia, here in Boston, and Boston is practically the export market 
for the lobsters of the world. 

I think, while there is the present feeling now existing between 
Canada and our country, a feeling which I hope will always con- 
tinue, and while this commission is existing, something will be done. 
I hope both countries Avill honestly get together, and then there 
will be some hope for the future. Look into this matter of the can- 
ning of tinkers. 

I know the chairman of the fish commission in Massachusetts, 
because I had the pleasure of serving in the legislature, and I served 
on the committee in Avhich he was interested. He could tell joii of 
hundreds of crates of lobsters that he has handled himself that have 
come to the Boston market, with tinkers, which have been dumped 
overboard, quite recently. I certainly think the present situation 
should be corrected. I don't know the disposition of the bill that was 
before the Fish Commission. 

Secretary Eedfield. Perhaps Mr. Millett can inform us in regard 
to that. 

Mr. Millett. I would say that there were 36,000 lobsters of illegal 
length, some berried lobsters, and those were put overboard at various 
points along the coast, at regular lobster fishing spots, so that they 
might grow — 37,000, if I remember aright, that did not come up to 
our 9-inch law. They came from Nova Scotia. 

Secretary Eedfield. Can you define the word " tinker," Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. Anything under 9 inches. 

Secretary Eedfield. This raises an interesting point. I have had 
occasion personally to see a good deal of this situation in connection 
with lobsters. 



94 AMERlCAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

JNlr. DoYLio. Yoli Avill see the sort of thing I have referred to all 
iilong the Nova Scotia coast. I happened to be entertained b}^ a 
distinguished friend there, who sei'xed in the Canadian Parliament, 
and I saAY a good deal of it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Thero is no (jiiestiou aljoiit it; along parts 
of the Nova Scotia coast there is no size limit, bnt the season is short. 
In many places their only chance to dispose of lobsters is by canning 
them. ;is they do not have access to the New England market. The 
time is ap|)roaching Avlien canning Avill be abolished altogether at 
])oints to this side of Halifax. 

Mr. Doyle. It will have to he. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It is that sort of thing tliat has caused the 
condition of affairs about Passamaquoddy Ba3^ in New Brunswick. 
But theie arc places thai I could i)oint out to you Avhere they Avill 
liaA'e to allow canning oi' the lobsters will be of no use at all. places 
too fai- away from centei's to Avhich they might be transported. For 
instance, there are places along Northumberland Straits and Prince 
Edward Island, and along ])arts of New BrunsAvick and the Gaspe 
coast. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that is absolutely right; but if they Avill pre- 
vent canning anything below 9 inches, it Avill preserve the industry. 

Secretary Redfield. That is, your criticism is directed not against 
the canning industry in those cases, but against the size of the lob- 
sters canned ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes; it stands to i-eason that if they are going to take 
lobsters 4, 5, or 6 inches in length, tinker lobsters, and can them, you 
Avill see the same results that yon have seen aromid Passamaquoddy 
Bay, that the lobsters Avill disappear, because Nova Scotia noAv fur- 
nishes practically all the lobsters. The same thing AA-.ill happen in 
Nova Scotia that has ha]ii)ened elsewhere. 

Secretary pEOFiELn. Thank you. very much, Mr. Doyle. This is 
very helpful. 

STATEMENT BY ME. FRANK S. WILLARD, LOBSTER DEALER, OF 

OF PORTLAND. ME. 

jMr. WiLLAKi). Mr. Chairman, there are no people any more inter- 
ested in this matter than the people doAvn in Maine. The great trouble 
is that there is a conflict of hiAvs in regard to the lobster industry. I 
think Ave ought to have a Federal hiAv on the subject. I have been 
in the lobster business for a number of years and have seen it gradu- 
ally going to pieces. The laAv doAvn in Maine is all right if you can 
enforce it. but you have to have the different States and countries 
get together on the matter, in order to get anyAAdiere. Under the 
present situation the business is simply being driven to Boston and 
NeAv York. It is going aAvay from Maine altogether. I Avould sug- 
gest that the lobster industry be made the subject of a Federal laAv 
and that it be enforced. Then everybody Avill haA'e to be on equal 
terms. 

Secretary Redeield. I think, in aIcw of Avhat Mr. Willard has 
said, and in view of AA'hat Mr. Doyle and others have said, that this 
may be the proper time, before adjourning in a fcAv minutes, to saA' 



AMEE.TCAi;r-CA]SrADIAISr FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 95 

something which will express our view of the seriousness of the 
lobster situation. We are ready to cooperate with money and with 
men in almost any way to keep the lobster industry going. We run 
a hatcher}^ now at Boothbay Harbor, in Maine, Avhich, from a certain 
point of vieAv, may be said to have had a measure of success. We 
are quite prepared at Washington to consider asking for authority 
and for funds to do more, if there can be some reasonable coopera- 
tion in New England on the subject. But. and this is the point, we 
are also being forced reluctantly to consider whether, in the absence 
of eft'ective laws effectively enforced, we are not coming close to the 
time for the application of a mandatory law of Congress, which 
may or may not have been called to your attention, which requires 
that the United States cease to spend money, cease operations, 
wherever State laws are not sufficiently enforced to protect a fisherj'^ 
in the judgment of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 

In such a case, then and there Ave are mandatorily instructed to stop 
oi^eration, and we have had in the back of our minds the question 
Avhether we must not stop the Boothbay lobster hatchery. We have 
it at the moment under serious consideration. I do not speak of that 
in any sense, I will say to you gentlemen who are interested in the 
lobster business, as a blutf. In Texas we failed to find the State 
laws sufficient to protect our officers in the full and free discharge 
of their work, under the provisions of this mandator}^ law. and 
insufficient to provide protection for one of our principal hatcheries, 
and we closed the hatchery. It is idle now, and the plant has been 
transferred elscAvhere. We foiuid in Maryland, at Havre de Grace, 
the laws of ISfar^dand insufficienth' enforced to protect the shad 
industry, and we have closed the shad hatchery at Havre de Grace. 
Observe, this is not a matter of choice with us. It is a mandator}^ 
laAv. and Ave haA'fe no choice. The moment it becomes clear that 
State laAvs are insufficient for the job or are insufficiently enforced 
Ave are prohibited from spending money to encourage the fishery. 
That is a very unfortunate state of affairs. I personally know a 
number of the poorer men Avho make a living out of their little 
motor boats on the coast of JMaine. I have knoAvn them for many 
years, and have seen man}^ of them groAv up from childhood and 
go out on their first trips. But they are losing their livelihood, and 
it seems that it may be necessary for the United States Government 
to take its hands off unle-ss Ave can agree upon laws good enough or 
Avell enough enforced to make it possible for the United States Gov- 
ernment to continue. 

(A recess Avas taken from 12.50 to 2.30 p. m.) 

AFTERXOOX SESSION. 

The hearing Avas resumed at 2.30 o'clock p. m.. Chairman Redfield 
presiding. 

Secretary Eedfield. The meeting Avill please come to order. I 
tim informed, gentlemen, that there is a delegation present from the 
State of Vermont Avhich desires to present certain facts Avith regard 
to the fisheries on Lake Champlain. Are those gentlemen here noAV? 

(It appeared that the delegation referred to had not yet appeared.) 



9G AMERICAX-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOSEPH A. RICH, PRESIDENT OF THE BAY 

STATE FISHING CO. 

Secrehiry Eedfikld. Is Mr. Joseph A. Ricli, president of the Bay 
State Fisliing- Co., present? 

Mr. Rich. He is, Mr. Chairman, but is not president. I am con- 
nected Avith the Bay State Fishina" Co. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Rich, the commission is very much inter- 
ested to got your viewpoint on the matters we were discussing this 
morning. I think you were present, were you not? 

]Mr. Rich. Yes, sir. 

Secretary REOKiri.u. AA'e sliali be ghul to liear what you have to 
say. 

Mr. Rich. There is tlie poiur that Capt. Young brought up. Will 
you read the first paragraph of those six points? 

Secretary Redfielo. This is not intended, by any means, to be 
inclusive or exclusive. The first memorandum was: '''The proposed 
extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses to American fish- 
ing vessels, by whatever means they nuiy be propelled, and the reduc- 
tion of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal 
sum of $1 per vessel, and that the renewal of the licenses from year to 
year be not conditional upon an order in council of the Government 
of Canada, but form part of the arrangement itself." 

Mr. Rich. That does not say that they shall be subject to the same 
laws and regulations as Canadian vessels, but simply names what 
they will have for that $1. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, this is only understood to be a 
condensed statement of the thing, and we shall be very glad to re- 
ceive from you suggestions as to the form it should take. That is 
Avhat Ave are here for. 

]Mr. Rich. I am only expressing my OAvn opinion. 

Secretary Redfield. And that is Avhat Ave Avish. 

Mr. Rich. Well, that sounds like a big advantage, but it simply 
means a fcAv dollars less. Of course, it is an accommodation, and it 
is Avorth something. 

Secretary Redfield. It is understood by the connnission to invoh'e 
the extension of rights not noAv suggested to motor or steam A^essels 
to those vessels. In other Avords, they are not now free to enter at 
all, except upon some special emergency : and this, as Ave are in- 
formed, Avould extend to practically the entire sea-going fleet the 
privileges noAv accorded to but a feAv vessels of that fleet. 

Mr. Rich. That Avonld be some advantage, quite a little advantage, 
and Avould be Avorth something. 

Secretary Redfield. What advantage would that be, in your judg- 
ment, as a business man ? 

Mr. Rich. Well, vessels that are going there and paying the pres- 
ent amount wouldn't have to pay so much money. If it is extended 
to motor-driven vessels, vessels driven by other poAver than the wind, 
those vessels are increasing all the time, and there Avould be that 
many more vessels to take advantage of this for Avhatever it is A\;orth. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, aren't there other advantages, arising, 
for instance, from purchasing their supplies in Avhatever port they 
Avish, the shipping of creAvs Avherever they are to be obtained, the 
transshipment of fish in bond through to the United States, and the 



AMERICAX-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 97 

selling- of fish in the Canadian market whenever it miglit be funnd 
expedient to do so? Wonldn't those advantages induce a consider- 
able nnmber of vessels to go there if the tax were removed? 

Mr. Rich. Why, it is not a question of tax. The vessels have been 
going there and taking advantage of it, and paying the tax. 

Secretary Redfielu. Yes: certain classes of vessels have found it 
worth doing, have they not? 

Mr. Rich. With sufficient advantage they would pay the tax. The 
greater proportion of the fleet is at the present time, or will be in 
^he near future, equipped with auxiliary power — crude oil or gaso- 
line engines — and thi.s opens that advantage to that many more 
vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. The object, the pur})()se we want to see 
achieved — and we would like to get your opinion wdiether it is a 
desirable purpose — is to make just as completely as possible an ab- 
solute mutuality of interests, so that an American vessel entering a 
Canadian port shall receive the same treatment that it Avill receive 
in our ports or vice versa. 

Mr. Rich. In reading over the terms and articles of the proposed 
agreement it seems, in the light of a trade, that we have some ad- 
vantages to offer the Canadian fishermen, and the Canadian Govern- 
ment also have some advantages that they can offer to us. That is 
about it, isn't it — that it is in the nature of a trade? 

Secretary Redfield. Why. in the nature of one offsetting the other, 
certainly. The question is whether this is a good bargani to make. 

Mr. Rich. That is a matter of opinion, whether it is a good bar- 
gain to make. 

Secretary Redfield. That is what we Avant to find out. 

Mr. Rich. When it comes to opening our ports to vessels of Can- 
adian registry to get clearances such as have been referred to. etc., 
in exchange for the same rights to American vessels in Canadian 
ports, it merely means swapping a market of 10,000,000 people for 
a market of 100,000.000 people. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, on the American side isn't there some 
advantage in having the use of the Canadian ports for whatever 
purposes American captains may desire? 

Mr. Rich. As I said before, that is, in my opinion, of consider- 
able advantage, but isn't the other side of the thing to be considered, 
that in return for the opening of a market of 10,000,000 people you 
are opening up to them — to vessels of Canadian registry — a market 
of 100,000.000 people? 

Secretary Redfield. Well, our ports are now open to vessels bring- 
ing their fish here. 

Mr. Rich. As merchantmen. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; as merchantmen. There are certain ob- 
stacles in the way. as we know, that this would remove. That is. 
they can not go from Boston or from Gloucester direct to the fishing 
banks or the Atlantic, although the law seems to permit them, as a 
matte]' of fact, to go from the Alaskan ports, on the Pacific, to the 
halibut banks, without going to a Canadian port. Of course, the 
whole question is. whether there is any material advantage in the 
whole proposition. The Canadian, fish are now admitted free, largo 

.-')^f).^o— 18 7 



9S AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Cjiiaiitities of them. Do we, or do Ave not, wish, hi ^iew of die con- 
cessions they suggest, to have the hxrgest and freest possible niove- 
nient of food of this kind? Is it advantageous? That is the point. 
You see, it can be looked at from several viewpoints — from the point 
of Aiew of the fishermen, from the point of view of the fishing-vessel 
owner, the fish dealer, #r the factor, or from the point of view of 
(he man who eats the fish. 

Mr. Eicir. There is no question that the people of the United States 
want cheap food and plenty of it; that the}^ Avant it as cheap as they 
can get it : and that is what we all want, looking at the matter from 
the standpoint of the producer during normal times. These times are 
not normal. But during normal times it is common knowledge that 
British built steam trawlers, taking them for an illustration, can 
be bidlt and o])erated for something like 50 per cent of what we 
could operate the fieet over here. If that trade is carried out, that 
you have outlined here, it means that when the times become normal, 
lis they were previous to 1911, British steam trawler owners can 
take a fleet of travlers, bring them to Canada, put them under 
Canadian registry, send them out with Canadian crews, fish on the 
Georges, or any of our local banks at certain seasons of the year, 
bring the fish to Boston, and that the American fleet would be handi- 
capped by 50 per cent cost of operation in building and handling, 
as compared with them. I don't think the American fisherman asks 
for any charity, but you can not say to him, " Go ahead and produce 
fish,"" and then submit him to that 50 per cent handicap while doing it. 

Secretary Redfield. Isn't it a fact that they can do that to-day. 
and how far does this handicap you? 

Mr. EiCH. I don't think they can to-da}', because of abnormal con- 
ditions in XeAv Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I think the prices of 
materials down there now are practically as high as they ai'e here. 

Secretary Redfield. I don't mean under existing economic condi- 
tions, but under the present law there is nothing to prevent the very 
tJiing that you speak of happening? 

Mr. Rich. Previous to 1911. if that trade you noAv speak of was 
in force, it Avould have meant placing practically a 50 per cent handi- 
cap on American vessel owners ancl fishermen. In other words, to 
produce the same fish under the same conditions, Ave Avould have had 
lu invest $150,000 against tlie other man's $100,000. Of course, that 
is aiiessAvork. and T don"t suppose you Avaiit me to do any guessing 
here. 

Secretary Redfield. This Liav Avas passed in 1914? 

]Mr. Saa'eet. The Panama Canal act Avas passed before the Avar, 
and that was modified about a month after the Avar commenced 
in Europe so as to apply to all vessels, not only those built 
Avithin fiA'e years, but all A'essels, so that American registry, as the 
hiAv stands to-day, is granted to a vessel of foreign construction. So 
the Canadian Avould have no particular adA^antage as the laAv stands 
iiOAv over an American or over a citizen of the United States in regard 
't() the consti'uction of the vessel, as Ave can buy our vessels in the same 
m;ii'kets that they buy theirs. I Avas going to ask you if. under those 
circumstances, it Avould not be merely a question of Avages or a (]ues- 
tion of operation. 

Mr. Rich. Didn't that proviso apply exclusively to merchant ves- 
sels, principally OAvned in the United States, the biggest part of them 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEEEISrCE. 99 

owned in the United States, and built a short time previous to tlie 
time when the act was passed ? It didn't apply to fishermen, did it 'i 
Mr. Sweet. Oh, yes. It applied to all vessels, as I under- 
stand: but as originally passed it applied only to vessels con- 
structed fi^e years. I think, previous to the passage of the act. 
But within a month after the war began in Europe that five-year 
clause was eliminated entirely, and as the law stands to-day Ameri- 
can registr}^ may be granted to any foreign-built vessel for any pur- 
pose, as far as I know. 

Mr. KiCH. I don't care to question that, but are you sure, for any 
purpose? As I remember at the time, it was for merchant vessels 
and rot for fishing vessels. I looked it up at the time. 

Mr. Sweet. According to my recollection no distinction was made. 
I think Mr. Quigley. our attorney, may recollect about that, whether 
the Panama act applied to fishing vessels. 

Mr. Quigley. I think we have the Panama Canal act here. I will 
look at it. (See pp. 105-106.) 

Secretary Redeield. Fish became free. ]\lr. Rich, before the war 
began, with the I'nderwood tariff in 191-3. 
Mr. Rich. Sure. 

Secretary Redfield. So that the Canadians have been free, with 
power vessels, and vessels of every kind, to bring fish in free, before 
war conditions arose. 

Mr. Rich. I was not speaking of the tariff, but of the war condi- 
tions. 

Secretary Redfield. Long before the war fish were free. 
]\Ir. Millett. I would like to hear that statement again from you, 
^Ir. Chairman. 

Secretary Redfield. I say that fish were free under the ITnder- 
Avood tariff. 

^Ir. Millett. Fiesh fish? 

Secretary Redfield. I am not speaking of salt fish. 
Mr. Rich. In regard to the tariff' paid. I think Canada buys her 
gear in the same place we do. We pa}" a 60 per cent duty, coming 
into the I'^nited States. I think there is no duty on fishing gear 
going into Canada, is there? 

Chief Justice Hazex. That is correct. 
Mr. Rich. Except 7 per cent war tax. 
Mr. Millett. This indicates 13 per cent on trawl gear. 
Chief Justice Hazex. But if your vessels come into our ports 
and buy supplies there they will pay just the same price as Canadian 
fishermen pay. Perhaps, also, you can influence your Government, as 
there is no industry here that is protected by this particular dut3% 
to abolish the duty. It is only a source of revenue. 

]Mr. Rich. But doesn't a part of this mean exchanging the market 
of 100.000.000 people for a market of 10,000,000 people f 

Secretary Redfield. Pardon me, is that quite so? That is not quite 
the fact, is it, because already fresh fish is free in this market. It is 
not a question of exchanging a market of 10,000,000 people for a 
market of 100.000.000 people. .By the present law fresh fish is free 
in this market. So I don't think that is a correct point of view. Any 
Canadian vessel that sees fit — and they do see fit and come here con- 
stantly — can bring its cargo of fresh fish into Boston or Gloucester 
to-day, and they bring a great maii}^ million pounds of it in. ISTow, 



100 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FlSllEKIES CONFERENCE. 

Ave are not altering thai condition at all. It is simply a matter of 
saying- to them, "You may sail direct to the hshing grounds from 
one of onr ports instead of having to sail hrst to Yarmouth and then 
to the fishing grounds.'" They may come direct to Boston also from 
the fishing grounds, instead of coming first to Yarmouth and then 
coming here. 

Mr. MiLLETT. Do I understand that millions of pounds of fresh fish 
are conung into onr market here free from Nova Scotia ]3orts? 

Secretary Eedfield. What is your record on that. Dr. Smith? 

Dr. Smith. I could not give it offhand. 

Secretary Redfikld. But it is a fact that millions of pounds are 
coming in free? 

Dr. SMrrii. Yes; very large (luantities are couiing in. 

Secretary Redeteed. I would like to ask Mr. Millett in what re- 
spect he questions that? 

Mr. Millett. Do I understand the statement to be that millions of 
pounds of fresh fish are brought in here free? In the first place, 
I understand that they are expected, to change their registi'y before 
coming in. But I would ask the conference to make a statement in 
regard to that matter. 

Seci'etary Redfield. Do you question the fact? 

C^hief fJustice Hazen. What is the (|nestion you raise? 

Mr. MiLLE'j'T. About fresh-fish trips into Boston. 

Secretary Redfield. I do not know at present whether the million 
of i)ounds I have spoken of have come into Boston or not, but we 
do know that many millions of pounds of Canadian fresh fish are 
coming into the Ignited States. 

Mr. BuKNs. In Canadian bottoms? 

Secretary Redfield. Canadian-caught fish? 

Connnissioner Savef/i\ (^f course, a great many are brought in on 
the Pacific side. 

Secretary Redfield. I am informed that "20,000,000 pounds have 
come in. T shall be glad to have further information on the subject. 

Mr. RiCFL There are hiuulreds of thousands of ]:>ounds of fisli that 
come to Boston, fresh and frozen fish, the year round, vfinter and 
sununer. free, out they ccmie in merchant vessels and on railoads and 
steamers. 

Secretary Redfield. 1 understand that. I am not attempting to 
make a technical point nor to trip anybody up on a technical ])oint. 
We are here not to give information, but to get it, to learn and not 
to teach ; but the fact remains that Canadian fresh fish comes in large 
quantities into the American market. I am not concerned in the 
question whether technically it comes on the fishing vessels, in a 
dray, by canoe, or by airplane. That is a technical question. We 
are only discussing at the moment Avhether there is free access to this 
market for Canadian fresh fish. Is anybody going to question that 
fact ? If so, let him rise and let us see what the facts are. Does any- 
body doubt that fish, Canadian-caught fresh and frozen fish, comes 
free into the markets of the United States in quantity? Is that 
questioned? 

Mr. BiR^s. Mr. Secretary, has it not been the law that no fisliing 
vessel could come direct from the fishing grounds into Boston? 
Secretary Redfield. I am not tlisciissing that qnesticm. 



AMERICAX-CAN'ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 101 

Mr. Burns. Well, if it is a technical point arising under the 
. United States law, and one that might, if necessary, be regulated, I 
had an idea that the question might be raised here and might be 
discussed. 

Secretary Redfield. It is a perfectly proper question to raise and 
to discuss, but it is not the question that is being discussed at this 
time. 

Mr. MiLLETT. This is a matter of the most grave import to the 
fishing interests of this country, all the way through. We, as mem- 
liers of the commission on fish and game of Massachusetts, realize it 
perhaps more than anybody else. I had not intended to say a word 
on this matter seriously outside of raising any point that I thought 
might help you in your work, but I do want to quote from this. 
The first knowledge we had that this thing was even coming up was 
contained in a letter dated the 21:th of January, just the other day, 
from Washington. That arrived here the 26th or 27th, so you can 
judge how much chance we have had to prepare ourselves on am^- 
thing. Tliat letter was sent to the commission on fish and game, 
audi understand was also sent to different firms aiul different boards 
of trade in Boston and (xloucester. My friend from Vermont here. 
Ml". Titcomb, got the same letter, and they got the same thing in 
Xew York. This enumerates six questions or points. Now, our ex- 
istence depends on this thing. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, what is your point, Mr. Millett ? 
Mr. Millett. If you will allow me to continue just a second I 
will point it out to you. You see, we are required or asked to dis- 
cuss these six questions. Now, I have not seen any chance to discuss 
these questions in any way, shape, or manner. You have taken the 
Avhole matter up in a general way all the way through, and the 
minute a man gets up and says something he knows something about 
lie is immediately squelched. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Millett, I think you owe the commission 
an apology. 

Mr. Millett. Well, I apologize no^^■, jNlr. Secretary. 
Secretary Redfield. Your apology is accepted, provided you do 
not repeat the offense. What you have said is unworthy of an officer 
of the State of Massachusetts, and is not consistent with the truth. 
The first thing I said this morning was that there was no limit as 
to the time and the nature of the cliscussion. ' 

Mr. Millett\ We are trying to get ahead 

Secretary Redfield. If you will please let me say a few words 
more — ^there has not been and will be no effort to limit discussion. 
It has been invited and is now invited, fully and freely. But the 
commission is here to get the truth, and the only Avay to get the truth 
is by hearing what is said by those who appear, stating what they 
understand the facts to be, and then discussing the matters that are 
brought up. You are noAv breaking into a discussion of a subject 
at this moment, and breaking the whole current of the discussion of 
that subject ; and in doing that you also undertake to cast reflections 
on the good faith of the conference and to accuse it of bad manners. 
Mr. Millett. I do not do that, sir. 

Secretary Redfielix You certainly did. Xo man has been 
squelched. Every man is permitted and will be invited to say what 
he wants. Your imputation is an unworthy one. No time limit has 



1 1)2 AM I'.h'U'AN CANADIAN I' I S 1 1 l', IM KS CON l<M'11! !•: N C !■:. 

1)0011 pliioocl Oil tlio oonroroiioe — ouo wook. two wooivs. throo inoiilhs. or 
four montliy. Vou iiiay linvo all tlio tiiiu> von w an(. \o\\ aro not liiu- 
iloil to ti>-day or to this placo. and any suoh intimation as yon have 
luado is ontiroly unwarrantoil and is (|iiito unworthy of an otlioor of tho 
St a to of Massaohnsetts, sir. AVo woro discussin^LT with Mr. Ivioh a 
\ory distinol [ihaso of this ({iiostion — tho quosliou whothor. as ho 
statod it, this proposition, in short, was ono whioh oj)onod the niarkots 
of l()O.OlH),()l)0 poopU> on tho ono hand to tho markots of but 1(),()0().()()() 
people on the other hand. To that suggestion I raisod tho ciuostiou 
whothor it was not tlio fact (o-chiy, in suhstanoo. that our luarkot is at 
tho prosont tiino opon to Canada. That was tho. only subjoot at tho 
time boing disoussod. \\'o woro not discussing tho naturo cd' trading 
\ossols. tho naturo of fishing vessels, but tho more faot as to tho mtirkot 
boing opon. Thai was all. Upon tho discussion of that (]uostion. if 
you will parilon im\ you broke in with u mattor of irrolovant concorn 
at this liuio. 1 am uoi concornod. and said so, nor is tho coulVrouco 
concernod, with tho method of entering that market. r>nt 1 think llu' 
fact staled is uiu]uestionod. I think it is not true thai this proposi- 
tion makes such a change in the situation that it can bo truthfully 
said to opon the market. Tho faot is. as 1 understand it. at (he pres- 
ent time, and 1 shall bo ghul to have Mr. Kich correct mo, that fresh 
lish now comes from Canada to the Unitotl vStatos free of iliity. I 
think nobody rises to question that fact. 1 think tho fact is that Hsh 
comes here — Canadian-eanglit iish — in largo (]uantitios. Does any- 
body question that ^ Now, if that is the truth, if lish is free lo-day 

Air. JMiM.ETT. Fresh tish. 

Secretary Kedfiklix AVo aro talking about fresh lish. and nothing 
else: wo aro not talking about chestnuts or boiled ogas. AVo aro talk- 
ing about fresh lish, and it is not necessary to remind us constantly, 
please, of tho subject we aro talking about. If that is true, that Hsh is 
now free, ami if it is true that (luantilios of Hsh are coining in now. 
whatoNor tho way in which they come in. is it then true to say. is it 
correct as a mat tor of jiulgment to say, that this change is of such a 
character that it can bo correctly described as openini>- the markets of 
100,000,000 or 110,000,000 people as against those of 10.000.000 i^oo- 
ple i That is the subject we aro talking ab<mt. 

Mr. jMii-nKTT. Mr. Secretary, if I have otl'endod you in any way, or 
if you take it in that way or if your board takes it in that way, 1 otfor 
my abject apology. Hut 1 want to state in extenuation this fact : 1 am 
\ory much inlorostod in the Hsheries. 1 have made a very full and 
i-om])lete study of them for -28 years, as my friend. Dr. Smith knows. 
I am wrapped up in the subject. I try to look at it not simply fnun 
tho standpoint of tho Hshorman, of the owner, but fi'om tho stand]>oint 
of the State of Alassachusetts. If I have erred, sir. 1 beg vour pardon. 

Secretary Ekofiklo. That is very satisfactory. 

Chief flustico 11a/.kn. Mr. C^hairman, it seems to mo, if 1 may bo 
permitted to say so. that we are getting a little away from the point at 
issue. Fresh fish is brought into tho Ignited States at present not only 
from ports in Canada, but from Newfoundland and from every other 
place. From our returns for 1915-1 (> I find that the fresh livsh brought 
into the T'nited vStatos that rear, from April 1. li)ir>, to Ahirch :U. 
1911), was as follows: -J.^T-kSKV) pounds of cod: ni.^'iD.nOO pound- of 
herring: 4,.^So,(U)0 pounds of mackerel: (>,'i78,800 ]-»ounds of lobster: 
5,797.100 pounds of smohs. 1 am referring only to the Hgures for Hsh 



AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAX FISHEBIES COXFEEEaSTCE. 103 

ill Atlantic ports, not the Pacific ports. This is fish brought into 
ports along the Atlantic coast of the United States, free of cUity, 
under the Underwood tariff, which went into effect, as ,you will rec- 
ollect, in October, 1913. It was not an agreement between the two 
countries at all, but Avas in the interest of the people of the United 
States, as a matter of domestic policy, without any question of agree- 
ment or quid pro quo. Fresh fish were placed on the free list that 
year, and have been continued on that list ever since. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Now, I think the manner in which the questions here have ai'isen 
should be borne in mind at the present time. This is a conference of 
representatives of both countries, in which the question of the ad- 
mission of fish free into the United States from Canada is not an 
issue, because fish is already so admitted into the United States 
as a matter of domestic policy of the United States. The question 
has arisen whether the privilege of taking out such licenses as are 
now given under the modus vivendi in Canada should not be extended 
to all vessels of the United States, no matter hoAv propelled. But 
I repeat, as I have already pointed out, it must be borne in mind 
that the United States in making fish free was considering simply 
its own domestic interests. It did that because it thought it was in 
the interests of its oAvn jieople. There is no certainty of any such 
l)oli('y continuing. A different ])()licy might be put into etl'ect at any 
time by the existing governuient or a succeeding government. That 
being the case, there are other matters that should be considered, and 
the other matters that we pointed out should be considered are those 
that have already been suggested. There is the (juestion of extend- 
ing the modus vivendi licenses to any Auierican vessel, no matter 
how propelled. On the other hand, we point out that if fish from 
Canada are admitted here free that does not give to our fishing 
vessels the right to bring fish in here and clear again for the fishing- 
grounds on the high seas, then returning here before going to a Ca- 
nadian port. Having caught their fish they have had to go to a Ca- 
nadian port and then transfer their catch to a trading vessel, or have 
to take out registry as a trading vessel before coming to an Ameri- 
can port. This has caused delay ; and then, having brought the fish 
into an Americcin ])ort, they could not clear again for the fishing- 
grounds. The result of the correspondence between the Department 
of Commerce in the United States and the Department of Naval 
Service of Canada Avas a suggestion by your (xovernment that a 
conference be held to consider these matters. 

The question is whether an arrangement can be uuide that is of 
advantage mutually to both of us, fair and reasonable. We have 
thousands and thousands of people in Canada Avho will think that 
Canadian interests are being absolutely sacrificed if the modus vi- 
vendi licenses are extended. There are probably people in your 
country who think American interests Avill be sacrificed if a modifi- 
cation is made of the navigation laAvs or customs hiAvs. It is,- of 
course, desirable that an arrangement be made between the two 
countries that will possess elements of stability, because to-day a 
Ignited States fisherman has no right of a permanent character in 
Canadian i^orts at all. Year after year when the bill to extend the 
modus vivendi has been introduced it has been criticized, and at 



104 ami-:hican-caxadiax fisheries conference. 

any time tlie extension of the modus \i\eiKli may bi' lefiisod. and if 
that should happen the United States fishermen at once go back to 
the rights conceded to them and agreed to under the treaty of 1818, 
under ^vhich an American fisherman can only go into a Canadian 
])ort for the humanitarian |)urposes of shelter, rep^iirs, wood, and 
water. Therefoie. the (juestion naturally arises whether a mutually 
beneficial arrangeuient can not be made, (.ne that is fair and right to 
the interests of both counti'ies(' We say nothing about the tariff. 
Your (irovernment can at any time impose a tariff' upon fresh fish, 
and it is up to our (Tovernment to abolish the tariff' of 1 cent a pound, 
Avhich I do not think is of any importance to our people to-chiy. In 
this matter I s])eak i^ersonally. of course. The matter of tariff is 
simply left where it is, as a matter of domestic policy in the gov- 
ernment of either country. But we would be making an arrange- 
uient that we thought was desirable for both parties, and if it is 
agreeable to both to arrive at such an arrangement it will remove a 
great deal of friction and make things much easier and more pleas- 
ant in every way — at least. I should hope that would be the case — 
for fishing vessels of both countries. The question sim]:)ly boils itself 
down to that in a nutshell and nothing else. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. NICKERSON. 

Capt. Xkivkksux. Mr. Secretary, might 1 be [)ermitted to offer a 
suggestion right in connection with this third i)oint? First, the 
Canadian interior is uoav mostly supplied from the decks of British 
beam trawlers, landed at Hawkesbury, forAvarded for the most part 
by the Intercolonial Railroad, the Dominion of Canada, of course, 
paying part of the freight charges. Except the port of landing, no 
point in the maritime Provinces provides for transit over the line 
within their limits. The corporations interested and directly con- 
iH'rned have their headquarters in Montreal or some city farther west, 
and i)resumably in Europe. As a local industry this branch of the 
business is not of pai'amount impoi'tance. 

Second, the fish areas adjacent to the western coast of Xova Scotia 
lie closer inshoi'e and are more productive than the banks of the east- 
ern shore of the belt. The products in this part of the Province, 
whether landed from beam trawlers, schooners, or small boats, could 
be forwarded to Montreal and points west through St. John or Port- 
land with less than half the time and expense that is necessary by 
the established route. The fish could be ]mt down at its destination 
with no shrinkage and in prime condition. Local dealers would de- 
rive something from the handling of these goods and the other pro- 
vincial forwarding port would profit in like manner. 

Now, this being the case, Avould it not be advisable for the Cana- 
dian Government to open the highway for this routing through the 
Canadian Pacific or Grand Trunk and thus effect a great saving of 
time and expense, beside giving our inland fish-eating population the 
real article, almost alive and Hipping? Then the Hawki^sburv 
trawlers could devote themselves to Hshing for the European supply 
and the Nova Scotia boats could fish for the home market, develop- 
ing it more efficiently from year to year, thus avoiding the competi- 
tion, if nothing more, arising fi'om running their fish to Boston and 
Hooding the market of the New England producers. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 105 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Rich, dropping for the moment the mat- 
ter of lobsters, it appears that something in excess of 43.000,000 
pounds of Canadian-caught fresh fish entered the markets of our 
Atlantic coast in the year between April 1, 1915. and March 31, 1916. 
I am now looking for information. I have no infoi'mation on the 
subject myself and know nothing about it. In what sense would it 
be true that the plan Avhereby Canadian vessels wovdd come direct 
into American ports and would go direct from American ports to the 
fishing grounds, as they are now doing upon the Pacific coast. Avould 
be opening the markets in a sense in which they are not now open? 
Having the facts as they have been stated before you. in Avhat sense 
would that be true, if at all ? 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. RICH— Continued. 

Mr. Rich. AA'^hy, I can only cit.e. perhaps, what might be done. We 
never know what is going to happen. 

Secretary Redfield. I want to get your opinion. 

Mr. Rich. If it is true that in normal times they can build steam- 
ers in England for ])ractically 50 per cent of what they can be built 
here 

Secretary Redfield. Excuse me: you know you can buy those ves- 
sels and use them in our trade. 

Mr. RiciL I"^nder Canadian registry. 

Secretary Redf]i-:ld. I think not. AVo are looking into that. Ex- 
cuse my interruption and go right oil I am sorry to have inter- 
rupted you. I suppose you meant that that would give them a de- 
cided advantage as far as it went. 

Mr. Rich. If Ave could build a Aessel as cheaply as a British-built 
vessel could be built in normal times, I don't see that they Avould 
have any advantage over us in that respect. 

Secretary Redfield. Would your experience lead you to think, if 
forty-three and odd million pounds of fresh fish ])er annum is now 
coming into Atlantic ports, that a change whereby a Canadian A^es- 
sel. instead of going from the banks to a Nova Scotia port and trans- 
ferring its cargo to a trading vessel, or haA'ing its registiy changed 
to that of a trading vessel and then coming down to an American 
port — in other Avords, a change Avhereb}^ that vessel Avould come di- 
rect to Boston from the fishing grounds — Avould iiiA^ohe a ver}^ large 
increase in the amount of fish brought in that Avay? 

Mr. Rich. In the future ; A^es, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. "Why? 

Mr. Rich. Why, in normal times there will be more British beam 
traAvlers than they Avill knoAv Avhat to do Avith. and they Avill try to 
charter them in Canada and have them come here. There Avill be 
nothing to prevent their being put under Canadian registry. 

Secretary Redfield. They could do that before the Avar. 

Mr. Rich. They didn't have entry into our ports before the Avar. 

Secretary Redfield. The same entry that they have now. The 
])oint I am trying to get at is simply the difference betAveen the ex- 
isting practice and Avhat is proposed. Under the existing practice, 
the ports being located here and the banks there [indicating on map] , 
the vessel goes from here to here, and then there, and then here again. 
That is, she travels on the three sides of a triangle. Under the pro- 
posed arrangement, instead of traveling that exceedingh^ great dis- 



106 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

tance, she might travel simply on the hypotheiiiise of a triangle. 
Now, if under present conditions the vessels bring in from Canada 
43,000,000 ponnds of fresh fish to our Atlantic ports, to what extent, 
hi your judgment, woidd that be increased by what is ]:)roposecl? 
Can yon sa}'- that it wonld be largely increased? 

Mr. Rich. Why. in m_v jnclgment it Avonld be in the matter of a 
few years largely, hngely increased. 

Secretary REDriELo. What would the effect of that be, in youi- 
judgment, upon the markets of the country? 

Mr. Rich. Fish would l)e chea])er, which everybody wants. 

Secretary Redfield. vSo T understood you to believe that the mass 
of the American peo])le would be benefited by that pro})Osition? 

Mr. Rich. There is no doubt of it. 

Secretary Redfteed. Tlu've is no doubt, in your judgment, that 
that would be for the achantage of the largest part of ^-our fellow 
citizens? 

Mr. Rich. No doubt there would be more fish and the prices would 
be controlled absolutely by the law of supply and demand. 

Secretary REnFiKLo. Ts it conceivable, in your judgment, that the 
(Tomaud might largely increase if the supply couhl be largely in- 
creased ? 

Mr. Rich. It certainly would. 

Secretary Reivfield. You think the people of the Ignited States 
might be induced to eat as large a jjercentage of fish as the people 
of Great Britain ? 

Mr. Rich. We are almost the smallest fish-eating people in the 
world. 

Secretary Redfield. And if we increased our consum])tion of fish 
per capita to that of (ireat Britain, woiud it involve a great inci-ease 
in the demand and in the necessity of a large supj^ly to meet that 
demand ? 

Mr. Rich. An enormous increase. 

Secretarv Redfield. Into the millions of pounds, would it, Mr. 
Rich? 

Mr. Ricir. I haven't the figures in mind, but the per capita con- 
sumption of the British Islands is much more than it is here. 

Secretary Redfield. Five times as great as ours? 

yiv. Rich. I bad the figures. The consumption there is a great 
deal more. 

Secretarv Redfield. Approximately five times, I understand. So, 
if we were to cultivate our mai'ket for fish in this country isn't it a 
fact that there are not to-day sufficient vessels to meet the demands? 
If we should raise our consumption up to the point of Great Britain*-^ 
consumi)tion to-day, isn't it a fact that there r.re not enough vessel-^ 
in the Canadian and American fleets to bring the fish in? 

Mr. Rich. That is a fact. sir. 

Secretarv Redfield. So is it a fact or not that we are dealing Avith 
an industrv that is capable of indefinite exj^ansion? 

Mr. Rich. It is. 

Secretarv Redfield. That is so. is it not ? 

Mr. Ricii. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. I would say, Mr. Rich, referring to this registrv- 
law, that it was made to apply to vessels engaged in foreign 
trade. It doesn't say anything about fishing vessels one way or the 



AMERTCAN-CAN-ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 107 

other, but it does say that A^essels enoag-ed in coast Avise trade can not 
l»e admitted. What these vessels wonkl be considered as being if 
this phin Avere cnrried out I am not quite sure. 

yiv. Qi lOLKY. A trading vessel coming from a Canadian port to 
an American port wonld not be considered as being in the coastwise 
trade, and if it shoukl merely go from an American port to the 
fishing banks, as suggested, without going to a foreign port. I should 
say that it would still not be considered in coastwise trade. So I 
think there would kax'e to be legislation on the subject. 

Mr. Eirii. I should say that a vessel coming along the coast, under 
foreign registry, and clearing from one of ,our ports for the fishing' 
grounds, a vessel coming to Boston and really doing a coastAvise 
l)usiness. could not be cousidcu'ed as doing a foreign business under 
that act. 

STATEMENT BY MR; 0. M. ARNOLD, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW 
ENGLAND FISH CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there anybody here connected Avith the 
halibut interests of the Pacific coast? 

Mr. Arnold. Mr. Chairman. O. M. Ainold. of the Ncav England 
Fish Co. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you ever heard tlu\t the fact that fish- 
ing A^essels on the Pacific coast are obliged to go from an American 
port direct to the fishing grounds has injured your business? 

Mr. Arnold. Not a mite. 

Secretary Eedfield. You never heard of that? 

Mr. Arnold. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You have considerable interests on the Pacific 
coast ? 

Mr. Arnold. We have, both Canadian and American. 

Secretary Redfteld. Will yoTi giA^e us an idea in a general Avay of 
the extent of those interests ? 

Mr. Arnold. I would say that I could give you some idea of the 
situation out .there for the past 18 or 20 years. I couldn't give the 
exact time, but about 20 years. I can say something about the 
growth of the consumption of fish in Canada. When Ave first went 
out there you couldn't sell one cargo of fresh fish through the 
Avestern part of Canada. It is 20 years since Ave Avere established 
in Vancouver, the New England Fish Co. 

Chief Justice Hazen. 1894. 

Mr. Arnold. And at that time, speaking of the increase in the 
consumption of fish through Avestern Canada, there Avas no sale at 
all through there for fish; couldn't sell them; didn't haA^eany call for 
them at all. We started in there Avith two A^essels that Ave chartered, 
the Catalina and the Coquitlann, and at first Ave made hardly any 
headAvay at all. But after aAvhile we did better and commenced to 
build American vessels out there, and pretty soon increased our trade 
to a million pounds. In 1908 w^e established a Canadian branch. 
Since that time we have increased the trade through the Canadian 
consumption of fish 100 fold — more, 300 fold. 

Secretary Redfield. That is, you have increased your Canadian 
market for fresh fish ?>00 fold OA^er Avhat it Avas at the time Avhen you 
started in there ? 



lOS 



AIM i; HI CAN CANADIAN I'MSIl I'.HII'IS I 'ON I'M'^.m-'. N CM'!. 



Mr. Akn()i.i>. ^ OS ; aiul that was doiu' hy hard work, ami w r had 
(ho Caiuulian Pacilio road w\{\\ iis. ii'oKiuii- (hiMii (o oatinii; lish out 
thero (hroiijih woslorn Canada. 

Soorotary llKnni'.i.n. Ol" coiirso. il niiii'ht l>o incroasod ;'>(•») fohl and 
still bo small. 

Mr. Ai{N()i,n. ^^'olK i( is |)rotty ,iii>od now. Thoy aro iisiuii' a bic 
jnlo of Hsh now. If (ho pooplo of (ho I'nitod Statos a(o tish in (ho 
proportion (o which it is oaton (horo. wo conldn't iio( tisli ononii'h to 
suply (luMn any way. 

Sooro(ai'y Hkhfikm). This (|iios(ion is ono of pt'ouliar in(oros(. 
Von havo in mind tho fact that a C\uuidian tishinii; vessel passing 
north from British C'ohimbia throuiih tho inward passai>'o is oblii>od 
by our hiw (o rnn into Kotohikan. onr port, that (horo sho takes her 
dopai'diro (oohnii'ally for a Canadian por(. bill actually for tho 
tishinii' ii'ronnds^ 

Mr. AiJNoi-i). (u)os (o (ho tishino- iiioiinds; yos. 

SocrotaiT l\Ki)nKi,n. And on (ho Pacilic coas(. (o yoiii- own know I 
odiiV- 1 would like to havo you confirm mo in this if 1 am rii>hl. oi' 
toll mo if 1 am wronji' — an exactly contrary condition exists in (hat 
respect lo what exists on the Atlantic coast; that that contrary con- 
dition is the ono that exists on the Pacific coast in connection with 
(ho frosh-halibn( trade, and that that is the condition which would 
also bo os(ablished here by this proposed memorandum? 

Mr. AitNOi.n. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Kkhkiklo. Tliat is a fact l 

Mr. Aitxoi.n. ^"os, sir. 

Secretary HKui'iKro. Now. ha\o you found (ha( arran<2;omon( to 
work l\arm (o \our iniorcsis. cither .Vmorican or Canadian, out 
thero i 

Mr. Aknoi.u. 1( has noi. It has worked to owv ad\au(aii'c. 

Secretary KKDrirrn. And in the prosiMico of (hat condition has 
your business arown ^ 

Mr. Akxoi.u. Oui' business ha- oi-own e\ery year until the last two 
years, and the only troubli> now is tlu> scarcity of lish. (hat is all. 

Secretary l\F,ni'MKLn. Is it or is i( not a fact that in the distribution 
of (ish the v^amulian \ossols are permitted — even rec|uirod — to ao 
directly to the lishina" Ji'rounds from the American |->ort ? Is that a 
fact that you would o'ive any woiii'ht lo it in yoiu' operations: 

Mr. .Vknoi.o. ^'^>s. If (hat were not allowed we would ha\e to uo 
bat'k into a Canadian port. 1( would take longer, but we would 
havo to do il. 

Secretary Kkdi'ikiu. And you prefer to ha\'(^ thorn ao (o an Ameri- 
can i^orl i 

Ml'. Akxoi.u. \ OS. 

Secretary IxKOFiKm. .Vnd }our lishinu- concern prtd'ers to ha\e 
vessels ii'o direct from an American port lit the lishinu arounds? 

Mr. Akxoi.u. \ es. sir. 

Secretary KKnriKi.i). >A'hy ^ 

Mr. Aijxoi.n. It saxes time, and liuu' is u\oney. \\'e also ha\e an 
ottice at Prince Kuport. and have a place there— a Canailian bianch 
there — and if (he vessel should havo to ao t(^ Prince l\U})ert lo clear 
for tho tishin«»' a'ronnds. thai wouUl moan a distance of tU) or St> 
miles eac1\ way. ;uul that W(Mdd take too much lime. Pv usina that 
time on (he aronnds tishina. we can ac( :> a»'od nian\' more lish. 



AMERICAN-CAlsrAI>IAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 109 

Sccretai y Redfield. Is there anybody here who Avonld like to ask 
this gentleman any questions? This is an important phase of the 

case. 

Mr. Arnold. I will say that I am in favor of this proposition as 
representing the New England Fish Co. 

Secretary Redfield. That is, yon approve this proposed arrange- 
ment '. 

Mr. Arnold. Certainly. 

Secretary Redfteld. Do you have any vessels on the Atlantic 
coast i 

Mr. Arnold. Xo. 

Secretary Redfield. Your fleet is entirely on the Pacitic? 

Mr. Arnold. A Pacific fleet; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redeield. And it comprises both American and Ca- 
nadian vessels? 

Mr. Arnold. It does. AVe just lost one of our steamers. We now 
have only one steamer that is an American vessel, and have seven 
Canadian. 

Secretary Redfield. Are your vessels among those recjuired under 
certain conditions to go into the Canadian port of Prince Rupert ? 

Mr. Arnold. Our steamers? 

Secretary Redfield. Your \essels of any kind. 

Mr. Arnold. We do have the privilege of going in there; yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you use it? 

Mr. Arnold. We do not. We go into Ketchikan, and then to ^"an- 
couver. Of course, we would use the privilege to go there if occasion 
required. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you had experience vs^ith an order in 
council, which has been referred to, which would require you in case 
you went into Prince Rupert to get bait to go back to Prince Rupert 
to sell your catch ? 

Mr. Arnold. No. We have had nothing of that kind. You mean 
Yvith an American vessel? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Mr. Arnold. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know of the existence of an order in 
council to that effect ? 

Mr. Arnold. No. We have never had that occur to us. 

Secretary Redfield. You don't use Prince Rupert, yourselves? 

Mr. Arnold. We use that for our Canadian branch, although our 
American vessels have been in there and shipped fish in bond. 

Secretary Redfield. In going there to ship fish in bond by the 
Grand Trunk Pacific do yon buy bait and supplies there? 

Mr. Arnold. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Why not ? 

Mr. Arnold. Get plenty at Ketchikan. 

Secretary Redfield. The places are 80 or 1)0 miles apart? 

Mr. Arnold. Eighty or ninety miles. 

Secretary Redfield. (\in you buy as cheaply at Ketchikan as you 
can at Prince Rupert? 

Mr. Arnold. I don't think there is much difference between the 
two places — pretty high in both places. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact, to your knowledge, that 
American halibut vessels go right by the American port of Ketchi- 



110 AMEEICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEXCE. 

kail and go to Prince Eiipert, because of certain advantages of Prince 
Eiipert? 

Mr. Arkold. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Why do they do that? 

Mr. Arnold. Go there and ship fish direct from there, and that 
saves their going to their home port, Seattle. 

Secretary Redeield. Mr. Arnold, do you regard the American 
market as being, or do you know the American market to be. sub- 
stantially open to fresh fish caught by foreign vessels ? 

Mr. Arnold. I do. It comes in free now. 

Secretary Redeield. And are you availing yourself of that free- 
dom in 3^our business ? 

Mr. Arnold. Certainly am. 

Secretar}' Redfield. You find no restriction upon it ? 

Mr. Arnold. None at all. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you understand that the pi'oposed ar- 
rangement here in an}' way alters or enhirges the freedom of that 
movement ? 

Mr. Arnold. I think there would be a benefit. I am s])eaking now 
of what you asked me in regard to the west coast. 

Secretary Redfield. As a New England man yourself, experienced 
in fisheries, what reason is there for thinking that this proposed 
change, if made. Avould be an injury to New England? 

Mr. Arnold. I think it would be a benefit. 

Secretary Redfield. Why? 

Mr. Arnold. Because we would have a chance to get more fish. 
I am speaking for the public as a whole. I think, speaking for the 
country as a Avhole. we would have more fish and cheaper fish, and 
we are all looking for cheaper food. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you think it would be possible to largely 
increase the American demand for fish food ? 

Mr. Arnold. I do, by opening the market to Canada — I mean, 
letting the Canadian boats land fish here. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you think it Avould be possible to increase 
the American demand for fish food by deliberately cultivating a 
liking for fish food to an extent greater than it is noAv used? 

Mr. Arnold. I think it would create a liking for it. Where the 
prices of beef and everything else are going so high, and where the 
price of fish also is going so high, to get more fish in would bring 
the price of fish down. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. Is or is not the consumption of fish in the 
United States the smallest per capita of any of the great nations? 

Mr. Arnold. It certainly is. Canada, I think, is a much larger 
consumer, according to the population there. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know how much larger the average 
consumption of fish in Canada is than in the United States? 

Mr. Found. In Canada, 29 pounds per year per capita. 

Dr. Smith. Then the relative per capita consumption of Canada 
as compared with the consumption of the United States would be 
as 29 to 18 ? 

Secretar}^ Redfield. What is the consumption of Great Britain, 
Mr. Found? 

Mr. Found. Before the war, in Great Britain, it was about 56 
pounds. 



AMERICAN-CAXADIAiS^ FISHEEIES CONFEEEI^TCE. Ill 

Secretary IvEDriELD. The fact being, therefore, that if we could 
increase oiir consumption of fish to the point of consumption of 
(Ireat Britain, which consumes 56 pounds of fi,sh per capita per an- 
num, tliat woukl be more than three times the number of pounds per 
capita per annum that we now use. Is that vour understanding of 
it, Mr. Arnold? 

Mr. AiJXOLD. That is my understanding of it. 

Secretary Redfield. Oiie thing more, Mr. Arnold. HaA^e you had 
any trouble in connection with cold storage on the west coast ( 

%lr. Ar.>;oLD. In what direction'^ 

Secretary Redfield. Well, have you found that proper cold-stor- 
age facilities were provided for you at Prince Rupert? 

Mr. Arnold. We have none at Prince Rupert. I will say that in 
l^rince Rupert, our branch there, I don't think they have had any 
trouble in getting the fish frozen. 

Secretary Redfield. Doesn't the Canadian (xovernment subsidize 
cold-storage plants^ 

Mr. Ai;>-0LD. I don't know Avhcther they do or not? 

Secretary Redfield. Is there any objection to other parties l)uild- 
ing cold-storage plants in Canada? 

Mr. Ak>oli). I couldn't tell about the condition at the present 
time. I knoAv that we built (mrs in Canada. Our agent out there 
AAOuld pi'obably knoAV more about that. 

Secretary Redfield. But you did build a cold-storage plant of 
your own ? 

Mr. Arxold. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Any objection to building it? 

Mr. Arnold. Xot at all. 

Secretary Redfield. You haven't heard of any objections on the 
l-iart of Canada to Americans building cold-storage plants in 
Canada? 

Mr. Arnold. We didn't find any objection to our building there. 

Secretary Redfield. And you are operating one there? 

Mr. Arnold. Yes, sir; and one at Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Secretary Redfield. There is a free and open market for fish in 
Prince Rupert ? 

Mr. Arnold. There is; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And your buyei's and sellers operate freely 
without restriction? 

Ml'. Arnold. They bid on them the same as they do here. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. We wdll 
now take up the Lake Champlain question, I think, if the repre- 
sentatives of that section are here. I will say now that at an}^ time 
statements of any kind may be filed with the commission, in addi- 
tion to the statements that may be made to us here orally. Com- 
munications may be addressed to me as Secretary of Commerce at 
Washington, and I shall be delighted to see that they are made a part 
of the records of the commission. We invite an,ybody who ma.v not 
be prepared now to say what he maj wish to say, or who may later 
desire to present facts to the commission, to write to us at Washing- 
ton, and I shall see that such communications are made a part of the 
record of the commission. If further hearings are desired here, we 



112 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHErtTES CONFERENCE. 

shall aiTango to hold them here, until e\'erybodv has had an oppor- 
tunity to be heard in such a manner as he may Avish to be heard. 
We want to give the very broadest and fullest ()])portunity to all. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FRED L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT OF 
GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Fk'kd L. I)a\is. I would lil^t> (o ask to be referred to the law 
ivJating to the purchase of foreign \-essels to be used in the fisheries. 
^y\]] you kindly inform me where I can find that? 

Secretary Kedfield. I understand that that was passed in I !)()!). 
I said to Mr. Rich that an examination of the" law showed that it 
applied (mly to \'essels engaged or to be engaged in foreign trade. 
No reference is made to the fisheries one way or the other, but it says 
that it does not apply to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. 
But it nudves no i-eference to the vessels engaged in the Hsheries for 
or against, one way or the other. 

Mr. Davis. That practically jueans that we can not i>pply it to 
Vessels engaged in the fisheries, doesn't \t( It looks that way? 

Mr. QuiGi.EY. Yes; it looks that way. 

Mr. Davis. Since the war, haven't there been orders, in council or 
otherwise, of the British (Tovernment which have prevented the sale 
of vessels inuler British i-egistry to othev nations, or their registry in 
other nations? 

Secretary IvEdkielo. There ha\e been regulations in regard to ncs- 
sels issued by ever_v mitiou engaged in the war without exception, not 
excepting our own. 

(Miief Justice Haze>'. You have j^ractically a similar regulation in 
the United States. 

Mr. Davis. Exactly; and I was wondering how the problem Avas 
to be Avorked out. if vessels couldn't be bought or transferred. 

Secretary Rerfielo. Well, that is a Avar measure, entirely. 

Ca})t. Nu'KEUSox. A transfer of flag is not permitted. We had a 
conununication in regard to the subject, in regai'd to the \essel being- 
built in Canada, that I si)oke to you about, that a license could be 
obtained, but it didn't say l)y application to what (luarter. The ques- 
tion arose in coimection with the transfer of a small boat from 
(^larkes Harbor to Boston, and it A\as interdicted by the Canadian 
(xovernment uidess a .s[)ccial license Avei/e taken out. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I think Capt. Nickerson is absolutely right. 
It is not absolutely prohibitive, but can be done by special [)erniission. 

Mr. Sweet. l*robably the board there has some such authority as 
our Shipping Board. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Yes: done by the department of marine. 

Secretary REOFiEEn. The same thing can be done in this country, 
and has been done. 

Capt. Yoi'xo. Will this hearing take in Xewfoundland? 

Secretary Redfieed. No; avc are not discussing Newfoundland. 

Conunissionei- Hazex. I understand that Newfoundland will not 
discuss it, that they are i)erfectly safisHed. 

Secretary Redeield. I understand that our friends from Vermont, 
Avho are interested in the Lake Champlain situation, aie here, and we 
shall be j)leased to heai' from them. 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEREXCE. 113 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. L. PATRICK. OF THE VERMONT FISH AND 

GAME LEAGUE. 

Mr. Patrick. Mr. Chainnaii. I represent the Vermont Fish and 
(iame League. I wish to take only a few minutes' time upon this 
matter. I realize the fact that the question of nets and seines in the 
Canadian waters of Lake C'hamplain is perhaps a trifling matter 
compared Avith the otjier large questions you Avill be called upon to 
regiilate and decide. But one of the objects of this Vermont Fisli and 
(rame League is propagation and conservation of fish: and. gentle- 
men, if there was ever a time in the history of this North American 
Continent when Canada could ask a favor of the L^nited States or 
Avhen the United States could ask a favor of Canada, it would seem 
to me that the time is the present, when our boys are fighting side by 
side with your boys, and when both countries are linked togetlier in 
an eli'ort to win a world-wide war for democracy. With the present 
good feeling that seems to exist between the two countries, for that 
reason, we feel that we now have a right to ask that the seining or 
drawing of nets in Missisquoi Bay be discontinued, and Ave hope this 
request will receive impartial and careful consideration and will be 
granted. 

Vermont and New York States prohibit seining in all the Avaters 
of Lake Champlain in those States for practically 250 miles along the 
shore line, and is it right that this seining should be alloAved in 
Canada at a time Avhen the fish are going through their particular 
Av.-iters for <paAvning purposes^ The prohibition of netting in Lake 
Champlain has had a fine moral eifect on the public and, of course. 
has in the end enhanced our shore property A'alue. Again, our own 
Federal (rovernment maintains, and has for 25 A^ears at considerable 
expense, a pike-perch hatchery at Swanton, which is near by, and liaA^e 
liberally planted the ])ike-perch fry in Lake Champlain. Is it just 
that some Canadian fishermen should reap the harvest of that effort ( 
AVe hear a great deal noAV of conservation and propagation, and I 
think, perhaps, those Avords mean as much to us uoav as they ever did. 
Is it an act of conserAation to alloAv the seining of pike perch during 
the months of March and April i Just at that time there are 
thousands of pike perch taken out of the Canadian waters of Lake 
Champlain and sold in American markets. I am bold enough to 
state that I think that is an act which is a crime against the laAvs of 
nature. I think the policy Avhich exists in the Canadian waters of 
Lake Champlain is a destructiA'e policy, Avhile I feel that the policy 
noAv being pursued by Xcav York State and Vermont, in not alloAv- 
ing seining, is a constructive policy. So I believe there are at least 
three or four reasons why Ave have a good right to ask for a dis- 
continuance of this seining. 

First. Vermont and Xew Y^ork States prohibit it. 

Second. Our oAvn Federal Government maintains a fish hatchery 
right near this contested property and distributes the frA^ and the 
eggs there. Therefore, it does not seem fair for the Canadians to 
reap the full benefit of that. 

Third. Because of the fact that conservation siiould be recognized. 
It is a momentous question noAv. and it is not an act of conservntion 
to take pike perch just before their hatching time — spawning time. 
.ii9.i0— 1<S S 



114 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONPEEEISrCE. 

Fourth. I fec4 that there should be a constructive policy in 
Canadian watei's just as well as in the Vermont and New York 
waters. 

There are other men here representing A^ermont and New York 
State who Avill give j^ou much more definite information than I can : 
but I assure j^ou, gentlemen, that Yermonters are deeplj'' interested 
]n this question, and we shall await your decision anxiously. 

Secretary Redfield. Are there anj^ other members of the Vermont 
delegation who would like to add to Avhat Commissioner Patrick 
has stated? 

STATEMENT BY MR. LIUS lEAVENS, VEKMONT FISH AND GAME 

COMMISSIONER. 

Mr. Leavens. Mr. Chairman, I can say little, except in corrobora- 
tion of what Mr. Patrick, of our game league, has already stated. 
From correspondence and conversation with gentlemen from all over 
our State and Xew England. I may say that our people are very much 
interested in the development of the inland waters of Lake Cb.am- 
plain as a source of supply for food and game fishing. Because of 
that fact, in 1912 the practice of granting licenses for drawing seines 
in those waters was discontinued by the State of Vermont. New 
York State, likeAvise, discontinued that practice. 

We have also in the work of the department cooperated with the 
United States bureau in their woi'k at East Swanton. They have a 
station there where pike-perch are taken and stripped for hatching 
purposes, and we have tried to cooperate in making it possible for 
theri) to do it cheaply, by granting permission to take and sell the 
coarser fish to pay for the expense of taking the pike-perch for 
stripping. AYe have also operated a hatching station at Burlington, 
and we have distributed in the lake about 50,000,000 pike fry each 
season, in cooperation with the Federal bureau. 

I have with me a map of the seining grounds of Missisquoi Ba\ , 
sliowing the Canadian boundary, which the commission might like 
to look at for their information. The situaticm on the Canadian 
;iiire at Missisquoi Bay causes great dissatisfaction to the people 
\\ iu) oAvn propeity along the American shore. The result is constant 
iv.saire brought to bear at each session of our General Assembly in 
til!/ State of Vermont to go back to the policy of granting licenses 
i'oi' -eining. Of course, if Vermont goes back to that and grants sein- 
h.ti privileges in Missisquoi Bay, they must be granted to all parties 
;;iOig the shores of Lake Champlain in New York State as well. 
^^.'\■, York will then, of course, take up the practice again, and so all 
oMi' work of propagation and conservation nnist be done over again. 

For these reasons we believe that we are justified in asking this 
lionorable commisison to give the matter of seining on the shores of 
]\M sisquoi Bay serious attention. 

STATEMENT BY MR. D. A. LOOMIS, OF THE LAKE SHORE 
TRANSPORTATION CO. 

Mv. LooMis. jMr. Chairman, I have very little to add to what has 
already been stated by my predecessors. 1 am engaged in the oj^era- 
tion of hotels and steamboats on Lake Champlain. Our business is 



AMEEICAiSr-CAXADIAX PISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 115 

largely that of a tourist character, and among the tourists a large 
number are hook-and-line anglers. Their attention is attracted to 
Vermont because of the hook-and-line angling in Lake Champlain. 
The continuation of the seining has had a very serious effect on the 
hook-and-line fishing. 

As a food proposition, this question probablj^ does not enter into 
the consideration of your honorable board, bnt"^ it does appear to us 
that vre are warranted in coming before you and asking that some- 
thing be done in this matter, simply as a matter of justice. \"'ermont 
and Xew York are here, Avith their 250 miles of shore line, as against 
the Canadians, with some 10 or 12 miles. There are to be considered 
the expenses x\e are incurring annually for the propagation of the 
fish against not one dollar being spent by the Canadian Government. 
Therefore, it seems no more than right and just to our people and to 
the anglers at large who participate in this hook-and-line angling 
that this practice of seine fishing in Canada in the fall and spring— 
the spring particularly, that being the time when it is the nmst 
harmful — should be discontinued. Statistics can be furnished by my 
friend. ]Mr. Titcomb, as to the quantity, etc. 

STATEMENT BY J. W. TITCOMB, FISH CULTURIST OF THE STATE 

OF NEW YORK. 

]Mr. Titcomb. Mr. Chairman. I have been delegated by the State of 
Xew York to appear in response to your invitation, and perhaps it 
Avoukl be X)roper for me to say that I was commissioner in Vermont 
for about IS years. 1 was first appointed in 1891. At that time it 
was the Canadian custom to issue licenses for fishing both spring and 
fall, an.d on the Vermont side during the run of pike-perch, while this 
seine fishing was going on in Canada, it was not lawful to even fish 
with a hook and line. That was a very narrow law on the part of 
Vermont. We got it changed so that they could do hook-and-line 
fishing in Vermont, and I visited the Canadian authorities and tried 
to persuade them to stop fishing in Canada. I was unable to get 
any assurances from them of uniform action, and I recommended to 
the legislature that a bill be passed so that Vermont could issue 
licenses whenever they were issued in Canadian waters of the lake 
under the same terms and conditions. The following spring we 
issued. I think. 31 licenses. 

That map there shows where those seining groundis are on the 
Vermont side. You see they are very close together. The fishing 
m the spring is done through the ice b}" a very unique method, which 
is used there in Canada, I think devised b}^ a Vermonter. The seines 
are 130 or 110 rods long, so you see that they cover a very large 
portion of the baj', extending across from both sides. On the Ca- 
nadian side there are four nets operated directly opposite the mouth 
of the ]SIissisquoi River, which is one of the principal rivers which 
the pike-perch ascend for the spawning function. 

During that spring those 31 nets on the Vermont side sold about 
$6,000 worth of fish. I mnj seem to be inconsistent in another posi- 
tion I have taken. I attended a hearing in Syracuse, where I was 
trying to persuade three sportsmen's organizations to assist ns in 
connection with legislation, and favored the removal of carp and 
other rouoli fish from Clyde Lake and other lakes in Xew York. 



116 AMKh'lOAN-CAKADlAN rJSHEElES CONFERENCE. 

The coniinission in New York is trying to do all it can to help the 
National Food Administration and to help along- in the war situation 
in connection Avith tish supply, and it is proposed to get the carp 
out of the lake as soon as possible. Looking at the matter from 
the standpoint of :i iish culturist, the carp is not as valuable a fish 
as the others and are better protected naturally than others, because 
they don't take the hook and line, and it is indawful to use the net. 
80 the netting proposition was advanced in connection of those fish, 
and we tried to get the support of these organizations, explaining 
tlie advantages of getting these fish to help win the war and at the 
same time help improve the fishing situation by getting these enemies 
of the bass out of the water. So I want you to understand that our 
[)Osition in getting these fish where we can, and getting as many as 
possible, is not along the line of interfering with fishing in the future. 
I think the expression " letting down the bars," which has been 
going around, is unfortunate. We are simply trying to make our 
rules as liberal as possible in the interest of the public at large at 
the present time. But here on Lake Champlain there are millions 
of dollars invested in summer homes and hotels, and certainly some- 
thing should be done in the way of protection. 

The i)ike-perch is looked on in this lake as a game fish. It is one 
of the few places in tlie country where the pike-perch is regarded as 
a game hsh. It is a gi'eat thing for that section to have people able 
lo catch them. The Federal bureau was induced to put in a hatchery 
there, and the State put in a branch at Burlington to lielj) it along. 
As the commissioner from Vermont has stated, every session of the 
Vermont Legislature members are elected on the fish issue. They 
come down there and are willing to trade on every other bill that 
goes into the legislature in order to get votes to put this seining back 
in practice. Of course, they have a strong argument, that just oAcr 
this imaginary line people are allowed to take these pike out of the 
waters at the season when they ascend to spawn. The pike have the 
habit of leaving Vermont from all that i)ortiou of tlu^ lake, following 
up the SAvanton shore and up Missisquoi Bay, up Pike Eiver. aiu! 
Ihen down to Vermont again. Massachusetts passed a law prohilut- 
ing the sale of the pike-perch or fish caught in Missisquoi Bay in that 
manner, and New York tried to do the same thing, tried to force you 
]>eople to get in line by that method. But the result is that your 
Hshernum ship fish to ]NIontreal and then reshi]:) them here, so that 
tliey do not appear to come from Missisquoi Bay. So it is pretty 
diihcult to whip the devil rouml the stump. Missisquoi Bay elects 
re)u-eseutatives on the issue, also, the same as is done on our side. 
Your fishermen elect meml^rs of Parliament by campaign funds on 
this issue, and the same thing is done by fishermen in Vermont in 
connection with the Vermont Legislature, and men on our side assist 
in helping your members of Parliament to get elected, to keep up 
fisliing on that side. So you see the thing is all mixed up. 

Conunissioner Hazkn. It may get hig'her up than you. 

Mr. TriHOMB. I can't tell you about that. But that is the situation, 
anil it is a matter of connnon knoAvledge. Of course. Vermont might 
be persuaded at the next session of the legislature to go back again, 
and there you are. Some men think they are making themselves 
jnetty good fellows by voting for that sort of thing, and then others 
nill trv to have New York do the same thing. If these etforts are 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 117 

successful you would see what would happen, that there would be no 
restriction at all the whole length of the lake. If they were allowed 
to seine there, after a few seasons 3'ou couldn't even catch a bull head. 
Xew York would not even have to pass any legislation in the matter 
to allow the use of these nets. The State could issue licenses at any 
time to net Lake Champlain. But conservation is the policy of the 
day, and certainly something should be done in this matter by con- 
certed action. We trust that you can take the matter up. represent- 
ing both countries, and do something to remedy the situation on Lake 
Champlain. Attempts have been made to use nets also in the 
Ivichelieu liiver, through which the fish from Lake Champlain also 
ascend some, but we do not intend to issue any licenses there. We are 
going to stand by Vermont on this question, and our appeal to you 
is to get into line and join us in this movement. Let me tell you a 
story in regard to the situation in Canada. You are familiar with 
the fish known as the whitefish. locally called " shad." 

I, when I was the humble connnissioner of Vermont, got an audi- 
ence through one of the representati^■es higher u[) in the country 
to talk with your Minister of Marine P'isheries, and I ai)peared 
before him and said, " You are issuing licenses to catch whitefish 
during the spawning "season and we want to stop that, if possible." 
He said : " Xo : we don't allow licenses for whitefish during the 
spawning season. You are entirely mistaken."" I told him that such 
licenses were issued, and he immediately called upon JNir. Prince. 
I am sorry that Mr. Prince is not here, so that 1 can get the joke on 
him. Mr. Prince came in and produced one of the licenses, and said : 
" We are issuing licenses to catch fish in Missisquoi Ba.y, but this 
license reads for catching shad,"" and the Minister of Marine and 
Fisheries dismissed me, saying, '' That is all : we are not issuing 
licenses to catch whitefish, and you can go."" But they were not 
catching shad: there is no such fish in the lake, and men of your in- 
telligence know that there is not. But that is one of the times when 
they put it over on me. Xow, let us give and take in these matters. 
In this particular case I hope it has been presented in such a Avay 
that you can understand the situation. The fishery is comparati\e1y 
unimportant. It gives only a fcAv men a monopol_y of the fishing. 
If we can get the rough fish out of the lake without interfering 
with the fish that bring these people into the region and that have 
brought in property there, so that it has increased fi'om a very small, 
nominal value to an innnense amount, increasing the wealth of the 
surrounding country by bringing in beautiful homes, well and good. 
But when you issue licenses to just a few landowners you are not 
making it general enough. 

On the Vermont side, if we were going to give fishing privileges, 
they ought to be opened to anyone in Vermont who could pay for tlK' 
license, and the same in Xew York, and if the method were not pur- 
sued of seining to the shore it would be eas}^ enough to do it. They 
fish through the ice with nets, setting their shanties opposite us. and 
sometimes the shanties stick over our line at the mouth of the Mis- 
sisquoi River. The present state of affairs is not right, and I think 
you will cooperate with us with the idea of having uniform laws. 
One more point. As soon as the Federal hatchery went in the fish- 
ing began to improve, and the State put in a fish hatchery and the 



lis 



AM I'.ltU'AX CANAniAN IMS 1 1 I'.KII'.S (ON I' I'.i; I'.N (.M! 



l'\HliM'al li()\ oruiiioiK t'liriiishod (hr ou'U's to siork i( : luil diry dis- 
lril>u(0(l so f;u' ;nv:iy from thai sod ion of Canada. wIum'o whisky 
is a littlo rhoapcr than it i> down lioro. tlu-i't many of owv proplo woro 
not alilo to ii'ol np tluMo and aio not <2,\'Hino- du' licnolit o\' ii. When 
k c'omos to thi> tinani'ial pai't o\' it the --latisiirs of rexonue diM'ixed 
from the lishorios— winter before hisi 1 took the statistics of tlie lish 
and line lishorios throiiiih tlie iee. and those lishorn.ien lishiiio- IT) 
foot throng-h the it'O, haviiiii" sonu> roerea-tion and pleasnre at the same 
time. Avoro making- $10 to $1'J a day. 

(dii(M' .lustioo IIa/.kn. ^'on an(>N\ tisiiinii- ihrouah ihe iee^ 

Mr. TrrcoMU. Yos. sir. 

Chitd' Jnsi iee IIa/.kn. ^'on thin.k thai is noi dest met i\o ^ 

Mr. TrreoMr.. \o. "\^'e can -land that. That is dilVerent fr(an 
liu^se nets ihal ha\e been rtd'erred lo. and it is open to exeryltody. 
^ our people ean !isl\ ihrouii'h iht> iee in owv waters, and New ^"orkers 
ean. Many whom 1 moot therc^ in llie summer i.\o \\o[ lia\e an (>!'- 
portunitx lo i\() <o. but this i2.i\es an opportunity for reiToatiou and 
roiniinorat ion lo a K>t o[' iioopK> at a lime of the year \vl\on thov aro 
not (H'oupit'd tiilint;: th(> soih 'j'he farmers" boys ean then a'o out and 
make stnue money and ean ha\e a ii'ood tinu>. Then | roforrina' to that 
soet ion o[' I he ma|^ where the ■-eininii' o-ronnds are | the men iheiv w ho 
own I hi' sliori>-^ and those siMuino- are empU>yed as ii'uides in tlie sum- 
mer, and I he rexeniie I hey ean derixe ihe li\elihood ihe\' ean obtain 
from ihai soiwee will bo nmeh moi'e pornuuiont and will last 
thronah a miieh loniitM' season than the revomto they ii'ot from a sea- 
Min diirino- the siunino- period, and their oeeu]iation uill bo more 
permanent if these waters are pvoteeloth The fisliino- there is for 
piko-poreh ospoeiall} . bm ihey lake e\AM\ihini:'. The tishiuii- for 
white tish. whieh ytni eall "shad"" in ihai pariieular hK-alily. talvos 
in oilier kinds of tish than the white lish. 1 ha\e here rei)orts and 
what 1 have written on the subjoet duriiii: the jHuaod of my adniin- 
istiaiion ilu-re. from 1S0'_> to IWO. o-i\ino; the statistics of the lish- 
orios oi \'oriiiont State. Tho rovonno never ran tnor $G.000 a yonr. 
and that is divided n]^ aniono- ^ fow people. Tho valuo of tho hook- 
and-lino lishorios on Lake Chaniplain — tho intrinsic valuo of tho 
lish thomselvos. independent of tho sontimontal vnlno which increases 
ihe \alue o( property and brinii's in all this tonrist traffic — far ox- 
reed- am revenue whirh eonies from the not tishin«i". T thank yon 
\ ery nineli. 

Cdiiof fhistieo U.v/kn. .Vvo there an\- oiber Stato< that border on 
;he waters id" Lake (diamplain exeepi \'erinont and New ^ ork ^ 

Mr. TneoMn. No. sir. 

Cdiiof dustiee Ha/.kn. And ha- all ti-hinu' been abolished there ^ 

Mr. 'l"iTcoAii?. .Vll not tisiiiiiii-. 

Chief flnstice H.vzen. Not tishiiiii-. as well as seine li-hina :' 

Mr. TrreoMr>. Yos, sir: e\ ery kind. 

Cliief du-iiee IIa/.kn. So the only tishin<j,- that is iH-rmiiiod is 
by hook and line : 

Mr. TireoMi!. That i> all. 

Mr. Foi NO. 1 would ask the liontlomau if ho will bo kind onouiih 
to soml to mo a copy of the laws in this matter^ 1 find that the copy 
of the laws which T had occnsioii to refer to the other day was 
dated 1009. 

Mr. TrrcoMii. 1 shall be nlea>od to do so. 



AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE. 119 

Chief Justice Hazen. We have listened, gentlemen — especially 
Mr. Found and myself, the Canadian members of the commission — 
Avith very mnch interest to what has been said by you gentlemen 
from Xe^A' York and Vermont, and I have no hesitation in saying 
that I think they have made out a very strong case. It occurs to 
my mind that the case they have presented is analogous to the case 
that was presented this morning with regard to the preservation of 
the lobster along the coast of Xova Scotia, where we are endeavor- 
ing to protect the lobsters by means of a closed season, and are to 
a considerable extent hampered in our effort by people who come 
and fish just outside the territorial limits and carry the loljstersaway. 

In the case we have just heard apparentl}^ New York and Vermont 
liave refused to grant licenses for seining, and yet the Canadian Go\- 
ernment perndts seining in Missisquoi Bay, an arm of Lake Cham- 
plain, to which the fish resort for the purpose of spawning. I have no 
hesitation in saying to ,you gentlemen that I think that condition of 
affairs is not right. I think, in view of what you have said, that the 
matter will be taken up by the Canadian department dealing with 
fisheries, and I feel that they will be impressed, as Mr. Found and 
myself have been impressed, by the facts presented. I think very 
little time Avill elapse before the question will l)e fairly met. with the 
idea of preserving the fish in the lake. While Ave have not heard 
Avliat may be said by the people on the Canadian side Avith regard to 
this matter, it appears to us at the present time that this fishing by 
nets should be abolished and that only fishing by hook and line should 
be nl lowed. In that Avay the fish Avill be preserved and those Avaters 
Avill continue to l)e a source of delight to tourists Avho enjoy the fish- 
ing. T thiidv in the long ru.n such action as is suggested will ])e \ ery 
much in the interest of all. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. Is there anybody ^ho desires to present any 
other ])hase of the question? We are very much indebted to the gen- 
tlemen from Vermont Avho have come here upon the matter and to 
Mr. Titcomb foi- their clear presentation of the case. Is there any- 
body noAv Avho desires to present facts here on the larger ([uestions 
concerned in the Atlantic fisheries? 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. I Avould like to ask Capt. Young for some in- 
formation in that connection. Is it not a fact, Capt. Young, that the 
larger proportion of the Gloucester vessels are power vessels now — 
motor vessels? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir; a great many of them are poAver vessels. 

SecretarA^ Redfield. How many sailing vessels Avould you sa}^ still 
remain ? 

Capt. Young. Oh, perhaps 40 or 45 or between 40 and 50, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. What is the total fleet of Gloucester, as far 
as you know ? 

Capt. Young. In the neighborhood of perhaps 100 large A'essels 
which go down that Avay to fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Can you give the commission a rough esti- 
mate of the number of persons engaged in the actual fisheries of 
Gloucester ? 



120 AMEEICAK-CAXADIAK" FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Capt. YouxG. It would be pretty hard to sa,y, but I think between 
(xloucester and Boston the number woukl be in the neis'hborhood of 
3.000 men. 

Secretary Redfield. In the tAvo ports ^ Mi'. Brown, do a^ou think 
that is about right ? 

Mr. Browx. About 3.500. 

Secretary Redeield. About 3.500 altogether? 

Mr. Broavx. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Can either or both of you tell me what the 
ayerage earnings of those men are? 

Capt. Young. Well, the last t^yo years haye been A'ery big j^ears for 
fishing and the creAvs haye made great Ayages. They can not be com- 
pared Avith the years preyious to those. Preyious to the last tAvo 
years the fish industrj^ of Massachusetts Ayas not a A^^erA^ good industry. 
Fish A^^as yery. yery loAy. and a good many firms and yessels haye gone 
out of existence. I i-eally think if Aye had not had these tAyo pros- 
perous years there Ayould haA'e been little fishing out of Gloucester 
to-day. but those years haye helped us a great deal. 

Secretary Redfield. Are the creAys of the yessels United States 
citizens? 

Capt. YoixG. To a great extent. I tliink 50 per cent or better 
than 50 per cent are American citizens, or ai'e becoming American 
citizens eyery day. 

Secretary Redfield. I Ayant to be sure that I do not misunder- 
stand you. I gather that 50 per cent, or nearly 50 jier cent, of the 
creAys are not American citizens? 

Capt. YorxG. Yes. sii-; I think aou are prettv nearlv rioht al)out 
that. 

Secretary Redfield. Of Ayhat country are they citizens? 

Capt. Yoi XG. Xoya Scotia, Canada. XeAvfoundland. some Xor- 
Ayegians and SAyedes, and some Portuguese — Portuguese to a great 
extent. We haye a good many Portuguese in Gloucester.^ 

Secretary Redfield. You haye no subjects of Austria and Hun- 
gary ? 

Capt. Yoix<j. There may be one or tAvo. but Ave don't kno\v it. 
[Laughter.] 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. BroAvn. hoAy do you understand the situa- 
tion in that respect ? 

Mr. BROAyx'. There ai'e two (xermans on the bricks now: can not 
go fishing. 

Secretary Redfield. I mean, about the general situation? 

Mr. Broavx. I figure that there are about 75 per cent aliens in the 
fishing industry, or more — that is, Xoya Scotia. XeAyfoundland. Por- 
tuguese, and Ayhat Aye call the Dutchmen. 

Secretary Redfield. What do you call Dutchmen? 

Mr. BnoAyx. SAyedes, XorAyegians. Danes — all those Ave call Dutch- 
men — class them as one. 

Secretary Redfield. Many Italians^ 

Mr. BROAyx. No: the Italians haye what we call the mosquito 
boats ; catch herring. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Haye you any Japanese^ 

Mr. Broavx. I think there is one in (xloucester. 

Secretary Redfield. Xot a large proportion I 



1 See letter of Dr. Smith ou this subject. Exhibit X. 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 121 

Capt. YouxG. We have in Gloucester a good many married men 
AAdio have families in Gloucestei' and Avho live in Gloucester and are 
bringing up theii- children here — come pretty nearly being American 
citizens. These last two yeai's have been very prosperous years for 
all sailors, and the creAvs have made some money. I think I can 
safeh^ sa}^ that the creAvs have made perhaps from $700 to $2,000 a 
man — A^erv fcAv $2,000. but some have made almost $2,000. 

Secretary Kedfield. $700 to $2,000? 

Capt. Youx'G. Yes. sir. It varies a great deal, but they liaAe made 
a A'ery big year's Avork. Noav. Avhat Ave call the Portuguese vessel in 
Gloucester is Avhere the vessel has no poAver. He goes fishing in the 
Avinter time on the shore, brings fish into Boston fresh, going out 
one or tAvo days, and supplies the best fish that the market eats. In 
the summertime they go doAvn to Quero or Western Bank, 'take ice, 
bait, supplies, and e\erything from an American port. Gloucestei': 
go direct from Gloucester to the banks, and don't go into Nova 
Scotia to buy a license. I don't think one of the 20 vessels has 
bought a license in Canada — not one, to my knoAvledge. 

Secretary Eedfield. I understood — perhaps incorrectly, and you 
Avill correct me if I am wrong — that the mere matter of the form of a 
license, quite apart from the fee, is somethino; that the men do not 
like. Is that the fact? 

Capt. YouxG. Yes, sir; precisely. 

Secretary Eedfield. It is quite importarit to get that feeling. Tell 
us more about it. What is it that the men object to? 

Capt. Young. Well take it this Avay: When you go in and buy a 
license, you buy something. It is like a license for anything else. 
You buy 3^our license and somebody has a hold on you. If you have a 
license — for instance, under a license to-day I would go into Canada 
Avith a trip of fish and Avould Avant to transship them to America. 
The first thing they Avould have to send to OttaAva to get permission 
for me to ship them home in that Avay. 

Mr. Found. With the license ? 

Capt. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Found. No. 

Capt. Young. Oh. jes. 

(Capt. Young later, at the Gloucester hearing, said that it Avas not 
so; that he had been mistaken.) 

Secretary Eedfield. It Avill be a good idea to haA^e this cleared up, 
C'aptain, because Ave knoAv you believe that is so, and Ave Avant to be 
sure Avhat the situation is. 

Mr. Found. The license covers the privilege of purchasing bait, 
ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies, outfits, transshipments of 
catch, employment of ship creAvs, and so on. That is the privilege 
you receive by getting the license. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT 
OF THE GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I suppose matters pertaining to Glou- 
cester Avill be heard Avhere they can be discussed in the presence of a 
Gloucester audience ? 

SecretarA^ Eedfield. Certainh'. 



122 AMKRIOAiX-t'AXADlAN KlSllKKIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Davjs. We slinll be pleased to have matters concern in<i- the 
Gloueester people heard where (TJoucester i)eople are present to listen, 
so that they can i>'ive any information or ask any (incstions that miuhl 
snggest themsel ves. 

Secretary Eedfjeld. Do you understand, in the case that has been 
referred to, acting under a license, that there is son)e law jicculiai' to 
(iloncester Avhich requires sending to Ottawa for authority^ 

Mr. Davis. I do not know about the situation in that I'cspcct. 

Seci-etary Redfirld. 1 do not understand that there is a i^eculiar 
law in Canada for Gloucester. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. 

Ml'. Davis. My ])oint was simply that (iloncH'ster people will l)e 
present at the hearing in (rloucester and will be able to state their side 
of the ca^e and to deal with all these facts as they apply to Gloucester 
lishermen. That is the only matter T ha\-e in my mind. 

Mr. Found, I would suggest that one of the (ilouccstcr cajMains 
have his license with him when we go to Gloucester, so that that 
(jnestion may be set al)s('lutely at rest. 

Mr. Davis. 1 would ask what the (i|nestion is'^ 

Mr. Foii^No. Capt. Young has just stated that a ITnited States fish- 
ing vessel having a nu:)dus vivendi license, going into a Canadian 
poi't to transship fish into the United States has to first, notwith- 
standing having that license, wire to Ottawa to get permission from 
Ottawa to do so. 

Mr. Davis. That. 1 understand, is correct, although T don't know 
that it is correct. 

Mr. FoiTNO. My re([ut>st is. as I have not a license' form with n\e 
and so many Gloucester men probably *lo have it, that one of ihcm 
have a license present to-morrow when we go to (tloucesrer. 

Mr. Davis. 1 think that has been done, but it may be another case 
like that of the man who signed the i:)ai)er in Halifax, that has been 
i-eferred to here. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Will you have the goodness to ask some 
(Jloucestei- cai)tain or vessel owner Avho has taken out one of these 
nuxlus vivendi licenses to have it there to-morrow? 

Mr. Davis. I have one. but it is last year's. 

Chief Justice Hazen. 1 understand that last year's would be the 
same. 

Secretary Redfikld. Of courvse. no man's opinion would be worth 
anything if the license explains itself. That is the real evidence on 
the question — what the license says. 

Mr. Davis. T think, notwithstanding, that that is the case, that 
ihcy have had to get such permission. 

Chief flustice Hazen. Permits have been asked for by vessels 
that had no license, and that were therefore delayed. They have 
feared that their catch of fish would be destroyed if they had to go 
to a Massachusetts i)ort. and they have g<me into a Canadian port 
and asked to ship in bond to the Cnited States. That has been 
granted. Those are cases where a permit has been asked for. But 
1 would be \ ery uuich at sea if 1 were told that a vessel which had 
taken out a license that gav(> it the right to transshi]> fish to the 
United States in bond had not been permitted to do so. If we had 
a license, that would show at once what the fact was. Of course. 



AMERICAN -CAISTADIAX FISHERIES CONEERENCE. 123 

he AYOiikl not lie alloAved to sell fish in Canada. His license does not 
i^ive him that privilege. 

Secretary Redfield. That is a matter that is involved in the pro- • 
posed permit. 

Chief Justice Hazex. We have allowed fish to be sold in Canada 
under certain circumstances. We have allowed it to be done. 

]Mr. DA^•IS. Of course. Avhere the men could not get a better price 
here and would have to pay 1 cent a pound duty there, they would 
l)vefer to sell here. For instance, the price might be 3 cents a pound 
there, where the fish was worth about 10 cents a pound here. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Sometimes there are cases where vessels 
have been delayed, where they have a few fish and where they 
don't want to sell to the United States, but come to us and ask 
permission to sell fish in Canada, for their oAvn advantage, and we 
have given them the permission in nearly every case— special per- 
mission. That is not covered by the modus vivendi license; but 
under the modus vivendi license they have the absolute right to take 
their catch to a Canadian port and ship it under bond to the United 
States port. 

Capt. Yoi^XG. Of courbc it is a small matter. anyAvay. 

STATEMENT BY MR. SYLVESTER M. WHALEN, SECRETARY OF 
THE FISHmG MASTERS" ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON. 

Mr. Whalen. I am secretary of the Fishing Masters' Association 
of Boston, an association composed of captains of fishing vessels 
both from Boston and Gloucester, largely offshore fishermen. 

So far as I have been able to learn, sir, the members of the crews 
of offshore fishermen and the captains and owners are absolutely op- 
posed to this proposition of allowing Canadian vessels to come into 
American markets without restriction. When the American fishing 
industry or the United States fishing industry is spoken of here there 
is really no such thing iu a way — in this Avay. The men Avho actu- 
ally go out and catch the fish on the vessels are not United States 
men. As has been hinted here before. I venture to say that nine- 
tenths of the fishermen on American A^essels, offshore vessels, I 
mean, are NeAvfoimdlanders. Xova Scotia men. and French Cana- 
dians, at least nine-tentlis of them. As for the skippers of those ves- 
sels, they are United States citizens, but there again they are almost 
invariably XeAvfoundlanders. You Avill find the facts in that respect 
to-morrow doAvn in Gloucester. The men Avho go into this offshore 
fishino- year after year, season after season, and the captains, almost 
Avithout exception! are NeAvfoundland men. If you Avant the facts 
about that. I can give you some of the names. There are Capt. 
Xorris. Capt. Brophy. Valentine O'Neil, Capt. Watts, Capt. Parsons. 
Felix Hogan. and 50 others. Invariably they are XeAvfoundland 
men. 

Secretary Ixedfield. But American citizens? 

]Mr. Whalex. Yes, sir; because they have to be American citizens. 
But their creAvs are not, and I venture to say that nine-tenths Avould 
be a small proportion of the men Avho are not only foreign born, but 
Avho have not even become citizens. Occasionally a man Avill take out 
his first papers and Avill go along and do nothing more. The vast 



124 AMEEICAJSr-CANADIAN 'FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

majority do nothing of the kind. That is why I say, gentlemen, 
that is not a United States industry, as such. 

NoAv, Avhat is going to happen if Canadian vessels are allowed to 
come in here without restriction and sell their fish 'I What are these 
American vessels going to do? Where are they going to get the 
men? That is the question. You can not count on American boys 
going to sea. They never were fishermen and never will be. We 
have got to rely on Newfoundland men, Nova Scotia men, French 
Canadians, to man the vessels, and they are not going to man the 
A'essels here if Canadian vessels are going to be allowed to come in 
here without restriction. Why should they? The Canadian vessel 
will be as well otf as an American vessel, and why Avill these men 
need to ship on American vessels the way they are doing now ? The 
result will be that American vessels will be tied up to the Avharf. and 
Canadian vessels will be coming in here and enjoying the market. 
The American vessels can not get crews to man them. T don't see 
any ansAver to that, gentlemen. 

Secretary Eedfteld. Doesn't that depend to some degree on the 
demand for their services? 

Mr. Whalen. P]ven noAv it is difficult to get creAvs to go on Ameri- 
can vessels. 

Secretaiy Eedfield. Why is that? 

Mr. Wh'alen. Not enough men here. 

Secretary Eedfield. Haven't the Avages paid on the merchant 
marine under present circumstances had something to do Avith that? 

Mr. Whalen. I don't believe so. sir. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. WILLIAM H. BROWN, SECRETARY 
OF THE FISHERMAN'S UNION. 

Mr. Bkoavx. Would you like to have me answer that? 

Secretary Eedfield. I Avisli you avouIcI. 

Mr. Broavx. The reason I have found for the shortage of men on 
the oH'shore fleet is that the season is ovei- Avith nuickerel and quite 
a lot have gone home, French-Canadian and Nova Scotia fishermen. 
They go home to their families for from three to five months. 
Another reason is that Ave have got hundreds of men in Avhat they 
call the mosquito fleet, guarding our shores, men shipped out of 
Gloucestei'. Gloucester fishermen AAent into Avhat Avas called the 
patrol service, and Ave have, as far as I can get the facts and figures 
from the men, in the last foiu- months, around 250 men as soldiers 
drafted. I Avent up to the statehouse last Friday, upon the invita- 
tion of Mr. Putnam, of Washington,- on the fish board. Mr. Endi- 
cott called me up there to see Mr. Putnam, and I explained Avhere I 
could put at least 20,000,000 more pounds of fish a year into con- 
sumption if I had the men. We have the vessels, and I think the 
Gloucester representatives and oAvners Avill tell you hoAv many ves- 
sels Ave have alongside the Avharfs in Gloucester. But there is a lack 
of men. We can get the captains. Quite a number of men go as men 
Avho could go as captains if we could get the crews to go. But the 
expense of a captain taking a vessel is so large, and he has to lay 
around on the bricks for a couple of Aveeks oi- three Aveeks looking- 
for a creAV. that he is spending money and not making it, and he 
is up against that additional expense. I told Mr. Putnam and JNIr. 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 125 

Eiidicott about the situation for the hist three months or more, and 
they asked me what chiss of fishing I was in. 

December 18, I thinlv, I got a communication from (len. Crowder, 
that deep-sea fishermen would be chissecl as mariners and woukl 
naturall}^ go into class B 1. That is the information we got at the 
Bulfalo convention, and I think there is the same idea in Gloucester, 
because they are putting them in B 1. Boston is a bigger place 
than Gloucester, and they don't know here exactly what a fisherman 
is, what he looks like even. They think he is a queer fellow. But 
(Gloucester is a fishing place, and they know Avhat a fisherman is and 
class him as a mailner; 95 to 98 per cent are .young fellows, because 
an old num can not do the arduous work that a fisherman has to do, 
especially on deep-sea vessels. I Avas asked for a cop}^ of Gen. 
Growder's ruling, and I sent it, and they sent a message to Washing- 
ton in regard to a ruling on deep-sea fishermen, and I got an answer 
back Monday or Tuesday that we were not classed as mariners, but 
we could take class D ;2 of deferred classification and industrial 
purposes. It is a hard job. I have sent three men up to Judge 
Cohen's board yesterday, and was up myself, to find out Avhat <i 
mariner Avas, and what a deep-sea fisherman was. You don't have to 
go into the Avoods to catch deep-sea fish, but you go to the deep sea, 
and a marinei- must be a man who goes to sea for a livelihood; 
whether he goes as cook, as fishei-man, oi- on the bi-idge as captain he 
is a mariner. But a sailor and a seaman are two things. A seaman 
is a man Avho follows the sea, whatever his vocation is; a sailor is a 
man Avho navigates or helps navigate the vessel on deck. But our 
men are going to be drafted, and I have Avritten a letter, Avith a cop}'' 
of the letter I Avrote to Mr. Putnam, at Washington, to our president, 
Andy Furuseth, Avhom I think the chaii'inan knoAvs A^ery Avell. But 
that is the situation in Gloucester. In Boston they have more 
leeAvay. That is the reason for the shortage. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. SYLVESTER M. WHALEN. 

Mr. Whalex. Well, the fact is that there is a shortage, and if that 
thing goes through we couldn't get creAvs to man the vessels. 

Secretaiy Redfielo. The difference Avould be, if I understand the 
matter correctly, that a vessel starting from the Banks, instead of 
going to Canada and there changing her character from a fishing to 
a trading vessel, then coming to Boston direct. Avith that loss of 
time, could come direct to Portland or to Boston, Avithout travel- 
ing both sides of the triangle. That is the difference that is proposed. 
NoAv, can you suggest Avhy, if that Avere done upon the Atlantic coast, 
it Avould Avork out as you noAv say, in vicAv of the fact that for 10 
or 15 years vessels have gone direct to the fishing banks from Ameri- 
can ports on the Pacific coast, and that result has not happened 
there ? 

Mr. Wi-iALEN. I knoAv nothing Avhatever about Pacific coast con- 
ditions. I do knoAv^something about conditions here, something about 
the fishing that is done from Boston and Gloucester. I simply put 
myself in the position of NeAvfoundlancl men or Nova Scotia men, 
Avho, instead of doing as they noAv do, going to the States, to Boston 
or Gloucester, and shipping on a A^essel here, Avonld simply ship on 
one of their oAvn vessels doAvn there. They Avould have just as good 



126 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEREISrCE. 

a chance of maldng a dollar as they have here, under these proposed 
conditions, and why should they come here? Would you or I come 
here under the circumstances, or would we stay Avith the people with 
whom we have ties, our friends and relatives? What Avould you do 
yourself under those conditions'^ 

Chief Justice Hazex. You want to bear in mind that this con- 
ference has no reference to NeAvfoundland whatever, Newfoundland 
not being a part}^ to the conference. 

Mr. Whalex. I understand; but what effect would this new ar- 
rangement have on a Xewfovinclland fisherman? Wouldn't it haA'e 
the result of a greater shortage of men being shipped hje.re, if ships 
coming from Canada were given the same treatment in American 
ports that American vessels would have? What reason would there 
be for coming here and shipping on American vessels rather than on 
Canadian vessels? What inducement would there be? 

Chief Justice Hazen. What inducement is there to-clay? 

Mr. Whaeex. The fact that they make more money down here. 
That is the reason why they are here. Those Nova Scotia men are 
not down here because they love the scenery around Boston and 
Gloucester, but because they make a good dollar out of it. They do 
not come here because they love to go to sea from here. Whenever 
they have a chance, as Mr. Brown says, they go home. There are a 
lot of them down there now. When there is hard weather for a few 
months, many of them go home. 

Secretary Redeieed. And vour idea is that our vessels would lie 
idle? 

Mr. Whalex. Yes, sir; and I am making an appeal to the Ameri- 
cari representatives on the commission along this line. 

Secretary Kedeield. And in that case the supply of fish would 
drop off? 

Mr. Whalen, If it was carried out. the fishing industry around 
Boston and Gloucester, what Ave have here noAv, Avould be transferred 
to Canada. 

SecretarA" Kedeield. Is the Canadian fleet sufficient to handle the 
business, sufficienth^ large to suppU^ the entire demands of the 
United States? 

Mr. WiiALEN. I don't know, sir. 

Secretary Redeieed. Don't you think that has a Aery important 
bearing on the matter? Is it not a fact that men go for economic 
reasons Avhere they can get the best Avages ? 

Mr. Whalen. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redeield. And an American A'essel OAvner Avill ti-y to 
keep his vessel in use, so that it Avill be profitable? 

Mr. Whalen. Certainly. 

Secretary Redeield. And therefore, if he is unable to get men at 
one price, he Avill pay as much more as is necessary in order to keep 
the vessels running? 

Mr. Whalen. If he is able to. 

Secretary Redeield. And if there is a shortage of men and a de- 
mand for fish? 

Mr. Whalen. He Avould be at a disadvantage compared with a 
British vessel — would have to pay more. 

Secretary Redeield. Why? 

Mr. Whalen. Because they are drifting toward the British vessels. 



AMERICAN-CAE"ADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 127 

Mr. Browx. It is not a question of wages entirely in the fishing 
industry. It is supply and demand that malves prices. If the, Ameri- 
can owner is to beat the Canadian owner in getting men, he will have 
to give the men higher Avages. and in that respect he will be at a 
disadvantage. He Avould not get as much money out of the business 
as a Nova Scotia vessel. For instance, take two or three thousand 
dollars worth stoclv of fish, and Ave Avill say that a Nova Scotia vessel 
Avas on quarters and the American oAvner couldn't get any creAvs. He 
Avould have to put his vessel on fifths. That is to say, he could only 
take a fifth of that catch for his part, where the Nova Scotia captain 
Avould take a quarter. You see, the American vessel Avould have to 
meet the Nova Scotia Aessel on an equality in the matter of Avages 
and shares. 

Secretary IvEDriiCLi). I c(jnfess that it seems a little bit difficult to 
understand hoAv, Avith the increasing demand of the country for fish 
food, any arrangement possibly can exist Avhereunder vessels capable 
of catching fish, and made for that purpose, having owners desirous 
of making money by using those vessels, can possibly lie idle. Let us 
suppose that it is not fish at all. Here are two factories making cot- 
ton cloth, substantially alike, and in difference places, and there is a 
huge demand for their product. Can you conceive of any circum- 
stances under Avhicli one of those factories, against the Avishes of its 
owner, is going permanently to lie idle Avith a great demand for its 
products and with the oAvner anxious to run it and a market ready 
to hand, because of any possible slight difference in wages? Isn't it 
perfectly clear that the owner under such conditions Avould simply 
adjust himself to the circumstances and keep running? In other 
Avords. with this country taking scores of millions of pounds of fish 
and increasing its demand cA^ery day, is it possible to conceiA'e of cir- 
cumstances under Avhich there will not be an active demand for 
everybod}^ Avho can catch fish ? 

Mr. Whalex. Don't you think that Avould be kind of raising the 
ante on the American oAvner? If the Canadians ran into Gloucester 
fresh fish, and the American owners could not get the creAvs, they 
Avould have to raise the inducement to the creAvs sufficiently to get 
the men to go on those A'essels. 

Secretary Redeield. Possibly. 

Mr. Whalex. Don't you think that Avould be handicapping the 
American by requiring him to pay more than the Nova Scotian? 

Secretary Redfield. But do you suppose that the Canadians 
would be baclvAvard in demanding better treatment on their side? It 
it as broad as it is long. 

Mr. Whalex. I am assuming that the Americans and the Cana- 
dians w^ould be put on the same footing. I have got some letters 
from men in Nova Scotia who Avent doAvn home after the mackerel 
season was oA^er, to see their families, and noAv they can not get back. 
One in particular wrote me a letter and asked me to write and let 
him know when any skippers Avere going down that Avanted a couple 
of men. and to tell the captain to call into Lockport or doAvn in Yar- 
mouth — he didn't care Avhich — and they Avould take a train and ship. 
But they can not get across now, as the bars are ijut doAvn. So when 
the season starts, if there are no Nova Scotia fishermen coming over, 
hoAv are Ave going to get the men here to furnish these million pounds 



128 AMEEJCAX-CAXADIAK riSllEElKri COXriORENCE. 

of fish next season^ AVhere are we. g'oing to get aiivbody to run the 
mackerel fleet if the,y won''t let anybody come over ^ 

Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose it is hardly fair to say that they 
are not coming over. They are not conscrijjting tliem. 

Capt. NiCKEKsox. No: but I think they are collecting head money. 
1 think they collected $80,000 in Yaruiouth a short time ago. But. 
of course, it is a dead setback, and what effect it will have next yeai' 
I don't know. 

(The hearing was adjourned at 4.4.") o'clock ]>. ui. to Friday. Fcl)- 
ruary 1. at the same place, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



February 1, 1918—10 a. ^i. 

Secretary Redeield. The gentlemen will please come to order. Mr. 
Quigley. I will ask you to make a note to insert into the recoi'd at 
this stage of the hearing, when they can be obtained, the records from 
the Ignited States Cnstoms Service, or from the Bureau of Foreign 
and Domestic Connnerce, of the actual importations of fresh and 
salt fish into the United States from all comitries for a period of five 
years past for the purpose of comparison. (See Exhibit V. p. 380.) 
And make a note at this point also in the record that I have asked 
Mr. P^ound, of the connnission. to obtain from the Canadian customs 
authorities a statement for the record of the connnission of the im- 
portations of fish into Canada from the T'nited States, s'ay, for a 
period of five years also. 

Mr. Young — I don't mean you. Capt. Y'oung; you haA e a technical 
title — the gentleman behind you, if you will excuse me. I am looking 
forward to the pleasure of hearing from you again. Capt. Young. 
Mr. Y'oung, do you care to make a statement to the commission con- 
cerning the offshore lobster fishing? I would be glad, first of all, if 
we might have your full name and the name of the concern which 
you represent. 

STATEMENT BY MR. ALFRED L. YOUNG, OF THE FIRM OF J. A. 

YOUNG & CO. 

Secretary Eedeikld. Proceed in your own way, Mr. Young. 

Mr. YorxG. I am very glad to have the opportunity to make this 
statement. I think that I was the original exploiter of that proposi- 
tion of fishing for lobsters outside of the 3-mile limit in Xctx a 
Scotia. It was quite accidental on uw part, and it was not Avhat I 
set out to do. T have been in the lobster business all my life; my 
father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather before me were 
in that business, so that I have got a little back of me to bring the 
spirit doAvn to the present time. 

[ always have had the impression, through study and observing 
the Avays of the lobster, that it was not an inshore fisii; that it could 
be found offshoi'e on the shoals or Avherever ground fish was found — 
feeding ground, hard bottom of kelp. I always had the impression 
there were lobsters there, and I got so after a while that I was quite 
eager to find out for myself if it was so; but I couldn't find any lob- 
ster fishermen that would take the initiative and go for a long while. 
I finalh' got a man from Maine Avho was a practical lobsterman, and 



AMEEICAK-CAlSrADTAN' FISHERIES COiSTFEEEXCE. 129 

lie agreed to get a crew if I would fit out a vessel, wliicli I was very 
glad to do. And I sent him off on what is known as Cashes Bank, 
which some of the fishermen here can tell you about better than I 
can. It is off' of Yarmouth, about a hundred miles off from Portland. 
It is a small bank, a small fishing ground. And they did find lobsters 
there ; they found a lot of lobsters there. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. What bank did 3^ou call that? 

Mr. Young. Cashes Bank. 

Secretary Redfield. It is not on this map which we have here. I 
take it that it is a small bank. 

Mr. Young. A small bank; but I think these fishermen know all 
about it. It is a very small bank. We found lobsters there; they 
found nice lobsters there and for a small place there were lots of them. 
The greater part of them were egg-bearing lobsters. They went out 
there in Juh^ or August, I think, and the greater part of them were 
egg-bearing lobsters. They also reported that the water was chock 
full of halibut and codfish, and that the top of the water was very 
thick with these newly hatched lobsters. 

That proved the theory that I had that lobsters could be found 
on these banks — these feeding grounds for fish. Thejr did very 
well there, but they had to stay there a week or more to get the 
trip. When they came home — they were Maine fishermen, and they 
had been accustomed to go lobstering in the morning and get back 
to their homes at night, and they didn't like that staying out there 
for a week fishing, thej^ were not used to it and the}" would not go 
again. One of the fellows aboard was a Woods Harbor, Nova 
Scotia, man. He was a A^oung fellow and had been a fisherman. 
He came to me and was quite eager to try it again, and I let him go 
the next A^ear — let him take the vessel, and he got a crew of Woods 
Harbor men. He went out there and they found that they soon 
fished that bank over, as it was a small bank, and then they drifted 
to the eastward and finallj' to the Seal Island grounds, which was 
their own home fishing ground. And when they got there that was 
something different from what I wished to exploit. I wished to 
satisfy myself that the lobsters were off on the banks in the sea, not 
so near the shore as that. I knew they were there — ever}^ lobsterman 
knew thej^ were there. The}' finished there and did fairlj^ well. I 
kept it up for two or tlii'ee years, had a little trouble with the 
Canadian Government, and it was not profitable. The lobsters were 
not plenty enough — it took too long to make the trip. They could 
only make about two or three trips in the year, because weather 
conditions do not allow fishing later than the last of September, and 
there was no market for the goods here until after the 1st of July, 
and it was not profitable. 

It has been exploited to a considerabTe extent since by different 
ones, but they have gradually given it up. The crews were alto- 
gether Xova Scotia men that were acquainted with the grounds. I 
did get them to go off the South Channel here once and try it on the 
shoals there, but they either were not acquainted or they did not give 
it a proper trial and they did not find the goods. Xow, that is 
simply my experience. 

What I think in regard to the lobster question is that what we 
want is a Federal law. We have been trying to get a Federal law. 

51950—18—9 



130 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEBENCE. 

I tliink the best thinkers amona; the lobster people know that that 
is the only proper thing. The laws of the various lobster-producing 
States are dirt'erent. We used to have a 10^-inch law in Massachu- 
setts, Ave had it in Xew Hampshire, and we have it now in jNlaine. 
Nova Scotia lobsters used to come through here and go through into 
Rhode Island — where they did not have that law — and there they 
were scattered throughout the country, taking the business right 
awaj' from Boston; and that i-ather got on the nerves of us lobster 
dealers, so that we joined with the fishermen and demanded the 
9-inch law in Massachusetts, against our better judgment ; but we 
have got it to-day and have had it for a number of years. Xow, 
those lobsters stop in jSlassachusetts and they are scattered through- 
out the country from Boston. Xew Hampshire finally came to a 
9-inch law. Of course, there is a demand created among the lobster- 
eating people for those 9-inch lobsters at the present time. There 
are times of the year when a 9-inch lobster is more valuable than a 
larger lobstei'. There has been a considerable drain made on the 
Maine lobster fishery, on the 9-inch lobsters, contrarj^ to the laws of 
that State, not alone by New Hampshire and jVIassachusetts dealers 
and smack men. but by their own dealers — the Rockland and Port- 
land dealers have been as much in it as we have; and they have all 
got places in Boston; and they come here with those lobsters and 
they are scattered all over the country from here. That is wrong. 
Looking at it from the perpetuation of the lobster standpoint, it is 
wrong — it is altogether wrong. We know it. The lobster business is 
gradually getting away from us. Lobsters to-day are a great luxury. 
Why, we pay — I should hate to tell you what we paid yesterday. 
You probably know Ave paid nearly 50 cents a pound at wholesale to 
get lobsters here. That is prohibitive so far as eating goes. It ought 
not to be so. A proper law would be. to my mind, a KH-inch 
Federal law. and the same law in Nova Scotia, and in two or three 
years. I believe, it would put the lobster business back on its feet. 
For a year or two it would be a hardship, because most of the lobsters 
now run under 10^ inches • but, I think, after a few years lobstei-s 
Avould be from 10^ inches up. and they Avoidd breed faster from that 
length up. and Ave Avould in a shcrt Avhile haA'e moi-e lobsters. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I judge from your remarks that you are in 
faA'or of a laAv that Avould admit no lobsters into the NeAv England 
market, or into the markets of the United States, for sale, of less 
than 10^ inches? 

Mr. YorxG. I certainly am in favor of a laAv of that kind, provided 
Ave have the ]"aAv the same eA'erywhere. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You say that would have to be a Federal 
enactment ? Is it not a fact that in the State of Maine the law now 
prevents the catching of any lobsters of less than 10^ inches? 

Mr. YouxG. It is so. 

Chief Justice Hazex. In the State of Maine? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Now. Avhat other States on the Atlantic 
seaboard are there in which lobsters are caught? 

Mr. YouxG. NeAv Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island. Con- 
necticut, and NeAv York State, and some fcAv in Ncav JerseA'. 



AMERICAN-CAlsrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 131 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would it be possible to get those different 
States to pass a law similar to the law which now exists in the State 
of Maine? 

Mr. Young. I hardly think so. The possibilities are just the other 
wa}^ Pressure is being brought to bear on the State of Maine to 
change their law to a 9-inch law. 

Chief Justice Hazen. But has the attempt been made with the 
other States? Take Massachusetts, for instance. Has the attempt 
been made to have a law passed that no lobster shall be sold in Massa- 
chuetts which is less than 10^ inches? 

Mr. Young. It has been, and we used to have that law on our books 
here. We used to have a 10^-inch law in Massachusetts; but, as I 
say, the fact that these lobsters from Nova Scotia down to 9 inches 
came through Massachusetts and went to Ehole Island and were dis- 
tributed throughout the country from Rhode Island — from Newport 
particularly — took it out of the hands of the Boston dealers, ancl we 
did not consider it hardly fair. They came right through Boston 
and went by us, and we not be allowed to handle them. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If a law were passed preventing catching 
along the southern shore of Nova Scotia and Passamaquocldy Bay 
lobsters of less than 10^ inches, what eifect would that have upon 
the situation here in the Eastern States? If a law of that sort 
were passed in Canada, would it have the effect of inducing the 
States you mention, do you think, to pass similar laws? 

Mr. Young. It might have that effect. It avouIcI so far as the im- 
porters of lobsters are concerned. What I mean, the dealers. You 
know politics enter into this thing a whole lot — have in Massachu- 
setts. The fishermen want to catch the short lobsters. 

Chief Justice Hazen. They have votes? 

Mr. Young. They have votes, and they have representatives in the 
legislature that are catering to those votes. A part of the pressure 
brought to bear which changed our law here was the fact that they 
had a 9-inch law in Rhode Island when we had a 10^-inch law here, 
and it resulted in bringing those lobsters across the line into Rhode 
Island and shipping out from there. 

Chief Justice Hazen. When was the change made in the law from 
lOi to 9 inches? 

Mr. Young. Some time ago. I don't know just how long ago. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I Avant to tell you how that worked in my 
Province in New Brunswick. The law, so far as the county of 
Charlotte is concerned, which is the county which is divided from 
Maine by the St. Croix River, including the islands of Grand Manan, 
Deer, and Campobello — all those islands are in the county of Char- 
lotte — in the county of Charlotte and in the county of St. Johns, 
which adjoins the county of Charlotte on the eastward, there was a 
law by which no lobster of less than 10^ inches should be taken, and 
a few years ago the lobster fiishermen of St. Johns County came 
and made a very strong representation that the size of the lobster 
that could be brought into the Boston market had been reduced from 
10^ inches to 9 inches, and that it was in the interest of the lobster 
fishermen — it was in the interest of all — that the length should be 
reduced to 9 inches there. In the county of Charlotte they stuck 
to lOi inches, as they are doing in the State of Maine. That shows 



132 AMKRIOAN-OANADIAN l^MSHERIES CONFERENCE. 

liow one lliinii' lends lo nuolluM', jus! :is yoii lin\(> (old us about lihode 
rsliiud 'mlliKMU'iiiii- (he doci.sion hero. 'Hiou your chiiu^e of law here 
iulliiiMU'od (he iiction of St. flolius (^(>uu(.v. 

Ml". ^'oiiNo. And (luMi (h(> Tact (lud the chnnoe of hiw here hiduced 
New Hampshire to ('haui>e her law two or (hree years a^o. 

Chief flus(ic(> IIazkn, And your \iew is Ihal Ihis woidd ha\e (o ho 
done by Federal enactment, isn't it. Mi-. 'V'oung^ 

Mr, YouNO. I think it wouhh I think so, in order to get it unani- 
mous in (he various lobster-produeinc; States. It has always been put 
uj) 1(1 us dial it is a question of State rights, and that the States are 
jealous of their rights and would not gi\e them up to the Fedei-al 
(u)\ernnuMit, and we ha\e been told it would be impossible to have a 
I^'edtM-al law. 

Shief .lustice IIazen. There would be very great hostility, I sup- 
pose, on the [)art of many of these diifei-ent S(ates to the passage of 
such an enaetnient by the Federal authorities? 

Mr. YoiTNG. Well, that may be so. I believe Rhode Island and Con- 
neetieut would bitterly oppose it. 

Chief .Justice TIazkn. You have been in (he lobster industry for a 
great many y(>ars, Mr. "^'oung, and your father and grandfather be- 
fore you '( 

Mr. \'oiiNt). Yes, sir. 

Chief flustiee IIazkm. In view of your experience and what you 
know about the business, do you consider that the lobster industry, 
if i( is to be saved from destruction, is in need of special protection 
at the ])resent time? 

ISTr. YoiTNO. Well, there is no (luestion but what lobsters are grow- 
ing less and less all the time, and if you are going to save it you have 
got (o protect it; and 1 don't knoAv how you ai'c going to protect it 
unless you make laws. AVe have always had laws, as T say, for a 
good many years, but it seems as though every law was unpopular^ 
or if we had it for one State we didn't have it for another, and in 
spite of our laws lobsters are groAving less and less. In Maine they 
have the 101-inch hiAv, and they fish them all the year round when 
thev can, but still thev find more lobsters thei'e than in anv other 
State. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is (here any close season for lobsters in the 
othei- States you sj^eak of? 

Mr. ^'oi X(j. 1 think (here is a close season in Khode Island; there 
is a period when there are no lobsters there. They have a close sea- 
son in some of the eastern jiarts of INIaine. A good nuiny years ago 
Maine did have an experiment with a close season for 10 to 12 Aveeks 
in the sunnuer time, but it Avas not popular and Avas given up. 

Chief Justice Hazkx, Is there a period of the year during Avhich 
the importation of lobsters into Boston is forbidden by hnv ? From 
anywhere? T mean, have you a laAv here in Massachusetts or in 
Boston Avhich prevents the importation of lobsters into your State 
at certain seasons of the year? 

Mr. Young. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. So that, therefore, it Avould be correct to 
say that you can have lobsters in Boston all the year round if you 
are able to get them ? 

Mr. Young. We do. We have them the vear round. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 133 

Chief Justice Hazen. Have you given any attention to the subject 
of the artificial propagation of lobsters? 

Mr. Young. I have in a general way. I have been at the several 
propagation stations in Maine, the one at Woods Hole and the one 
at Gloucester. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What is your opinion in regard to the ef- 
fectiveness of those stations? 

Mr. Young. I don't think they are effective. That is my personal 
opinion. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you think it would be possible to main- 
tain the lobster industry or to restore the lobster industry b^^ means 
of close seasons during the year at different points along the coast 
and by means of lobster hatcheries? 

Mr. Young. I don't think that would restore it. If you will al- 
low me, I Avill tell you why. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That is exactly what I want to know, Mr. 
Young. 

Mr. Young. As I say, that was tried in Maine a good many years 
ago for a period of 10 or 12 weeks — whatever it was — and at the 
end of that period the fishermen were all allowed to put their 
lobster pots out, and they put them out, and they got great lobster 
fishing for a few weeks, and then it \Aent back to normal again. In 
other words, I believe that if you had a period of the year when there 
Avas a close season — it is a good deal like this in Nova Scotia at the 
present time — they get good fishing when they start out, but along 
toward the end of the season the fishing slacks aw^ay. And the fact 
that the lobster-fishing industry in western Xova Scotia is a great 
deal less than what it used to be is to my mind some proof that it is 
not a success — the close time. I would sooner think that a 10|^-inch 
law would be more effective. They have that in Maine, and, as I 
say, they fish there all the year round, and in most places in Maine, 
I think, they get lobsters when they fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, if I understand your opinion, Mr. 
Young, it is that the most effective method of protecting the lob.sters 
would be the passage and the enforcement of laws preventing the 
catching of lobsters at any time during the year of a less size than 
101 inches? 

Mr. Young. That certainly is my opinion. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Ancl your opinion is that if a law of that 
sort were passed and were enforced there would be no need of close 
seasons and no need of lobster hatcheries — — 

Mr. Young. No; I think nature 

Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). Which is somewhat experi- 
mental, anyway. 

Mr. Young. I think nature is more effective than any artificial 
means. 

Chief Justice Hazen, What is your idea of fishermen catching 
berry lobsters? 

Mr. Young. They should not be allowed to catch them. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If every lobster is a berry lobster, they 
should be compelled to put them back into the water ? 

Mr. Young. We have laws to that effect now. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Are they enforced? 



134 AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr riSHERIES CONPEEENCE. 

Mr. Young. Yes and no. No; I should say they Avere not. They 
are in some instances. The Government and the State at various 
times has bought these egg lobsters and returned them to the waters 
again. Of course, I am not a fisherman, but I know there are a lot 
of those lobsters come to the market at various times. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Have you had any experience with the tak- 
ing of lobsters and confining them in ponds? I mean mature lob- 
sters and confining them in ponds until they are right and have de- 
posited their spawn, berries, and then placing them back in the sea 
again for that purpose? 

Mr. Young. Why, I have personally got lobster ponds in the State 
of Maine myself, and I have made a practice of putting lobsters in 
those ponds for a great many je-uvs past. Your Nova Scotia lobsters 
are put in that pond, and Maine lobsters, too. We put them in in the 
spring of the year, and we take them out and market them in July 
and August. We put them in again in the fall and market them 
again at this time of the year. We can't keep them in those ponds 
over their moulting season, when they shed. That is impracticable. 
But as far as putting egg lobsters in the pond goes, we put, as I say, 
your Nova Scotia lobsters in there in the spring of the year and take 
them out in July and August and find a whole lot of new berry lob- 
sters. Lobsters if taken care of and looked after properly would 
certainly add a whole lot. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What do you do with those lobsters after 
you take them out of the pond ? 

Mr. Young. We sell them to the Government, and a good many in 
the State of Maine, at Booth Bay Harbor, where the hatchery is. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And what does the Government do with 
them ? Did they take the berries from those and hatch them in their 
hatchery, or did they take the lobsters just as they were and de- 
posit those berries and put them back in the sea? 

Mr. Young. They have always taken those lobsters in the summer 
time and carried them over until the next June, as the lobster car- 
ries the berries a 3^ear, and then they hatch them artificially in jars 
and deposit them when they are a few days old. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Now, do 3^ou think that better results could 
be obtained by getting those berries and hatching them artificially 
than would be obtained by taking that lobster and putting it back 
into the sea and letting it deposit those berries in the way that nature 
intended ? 

Mr. Young. I think that is the proper way. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You think that is the pro^oer way ? 

Mr. Young. To my mind. My impression is that that would be a 
proper way. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We have been experimenting with lobster 
hatcheries in Canada for some time — a good many lobster hatch- 
eries — and the fishery officers of the department, I think, entertain 
very grave doubts as to the effectiveness of that. That is true, I 
believe, Mr. Found? 

Mr. Found. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Now, you spoke of the minimum of 10^ 
inches as being your opinion of the right minimum size. That no 
lobsters should be caught under 10^ inches. May I ask you if you 



AMEEICAiSr-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 135 

have given any consideration to the question of a maximum size? 
It has been represented to us that while a lobster of 9 inches will have 
a certain number of berries, those berries increase enormously as 
the lobster gets larger, and a lobster of 12^ inches will have berries 
running to almost fabulous numbers. Have you considered whether, 
in addition to having a minimum size of 10^ inches, it would be well 
to also have a size beyond which a lobster can not be caught? A 
maximum size? 

Mr. Young. I have thought that over a great deal, and theoreti- 
cally it sounds good, but practically it is a hard thing to do. Now, 
it is a hard thing to measure a lobster anyway. Some States measure 
it by the length of the lobster from the bone on its nose to the end 
of its tail, and other States measure it from the bone on its nose to 
the end of the body shell. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Which way do you call the carapace meas- 
ure ? Do you know that expression ? 

Mr. YouxG. Xo; that is beyond me. The back-shell measure, I 
presume that is. That is better than the other way. But there is a 
measure in Ehode Island that has been exploited lately which is 
better than either of them, to my mind. 

Chief Justice Hazex. "When you speak of the 10^ inches, you 
mean the measure along the total length? 

^Ir. YouxG. The whole length. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I think they speak of it in the department 
as the carapace measurement. 

Mr. YouxG. The whole length of the lobster from the end of the 
bone on the body shell to the end of the bone on the middle flipper 
of his tail. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Now, to come l)ack to my question. Do you 
think there should be a maximum as well as a minimum size? 

!Mr. YouxG. No ; I do not ; because, as I say, it is impracticable 
for the fisherman to measure the lobster on both ends. I think, if 
you will let lobsters come to 10^ inches, they have been matured, and 
they will breed, and there will be enough of them escape to continue 
breeding. 

Chief Justice Hazex. AVell, I understand you to saj- it is not prac- 
ticable to measure. It is practicable to measure under lOi inches, 
and Avhy isn't it practicable to measure for over 12| or 13 inches ? 

^Ir. YouxG. Well, that is true. But we are in hot water all the 
time trying to measure them 10^ inches. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You Avould simply make the water a little 
hotter. I suppose. 

]Mr. YouxG. You would make the Avater hotter, and we will be 
subject to more persecutions, I might say. A fisherman has hard 
vrork to measure lobsters in a dory out there when there is a little 
roll on; and if he had to measure them on both ends, it would be 
quite a proposition. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I judge from what you have said, Mr. 
Young, that you were the pioneer in this well-smack business that 
has caused us trouble in Canada. 

Mr. YouxG. Well-smack fishing in Canada ? 

Chief Justice Hazex. You have given the business up, I under- 
stand? 



136 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. 

Mr. Young. I have. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do yon know hoAv mtmy are engaged in 
it now? 

Mr. YouxG. I think there were three or four smacks off there last 
year. I don't know just how many. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do yon know how close they come up to 
the Canadian territorial waters? 

Mr. Young. That I don't know. The captain and crew know 
more about that. I think they go pretty close. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you favor that practice? 

Mr. Young. I do not. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You are opposed to it? ^ 

Mr. Young. I am opposed to it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You don't think it is a proper practice 
when there is a closed season in Canada for others to come there and 
lie outside the 3-mile limit? 

Mr. Young. It is not right ; it is not fair. As I say, it is the 
captain and the cre^^ s that did it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You tried it for experimental purposes, as 
far as I can find out. 

Mr. Young. My intention was to go out onto the banks in the sea, 
such as Cashes Bank, and there must be a lot of territory out on the 
fishing banks where there is a hard bottom Avith kelp on it. with 
feeding ground, where there uuist be lobsters. But there is no way of 
getting them. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would you favor enacting a law to make 
illegal the practice of well smacks going there and fishing outside 
the territorial waters, or opposite to them, in Canada, at a time 
that the Canadian laws make it illegal to fish in the territorial 
waters ? 

Mr. Young. I certainly would. I w^ould favor a law of that 
character. I say it is not fair. 

Mr. Found. I would merely like to ask Mr. Young if he has ever 
considered, in connection with the double standard which was sug- 
gested, a possible effect on the larger standard of fixing the size of 
the ring of the trap. 

Mr. Young. AVell, I don't believe that would be effective. You 
would find some pretty good sized lobsters in the fishermen's dory — 
they will get caught. 

Mr. Found. It would not be perfect, but wouldn't it result very 
largely in controlling — — 

Mr. Young. I never thought so. The practical men. the lobster 
fishermen, coidd tell you better than I. 

Chief Justice Hazen". Could you, in your opinion. Mi-. Young, 
by prescribing the Avidth betAveen the slats of the traps — could you 
by that means regulate the size ? 

Mr. YouxG. I don't think so. 

Chief Justice Hazex. That is, you Avould have it Avide enough to 
let the small ones crawl out? 

Mr. YouxG. That has been exploited. I think they have a laAv 
in Connecticut uoav that the bars shall be 2 inches apart. I don't 
think it is practical. 

Chief Justice Hazex. The lob>^ter refuses to escape ? 



AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEKEXCE. 137 

Mr. Young. When the lobster gets into the trap he stays there. 

Chief Justice Hazex. And he doesn't crawl out through the aper- 
tures in the trap? 

Mr. YoTJXG. He won't crawl out. If the fishermen jerk the trap 
he goes over sideways and he comes into the dory. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You don't think that would be effective, 
then, as a practical measure? 

Mr. Young. I think nothing but a 10-|-inch law^ would be effective. 

Mr. Sweet. I think you rather intimated that you thought there 
was some better method of measuring. Did joii not ? 

Mr. YouxG. Oh, I was going to say that the State of Rhode 
Island — il saw a measure down there that seemed to me as though it 
would be good. That was a measure from the eye socket of the lob- 
ster to the end of the bone on the body shell. Now. the eye socket is 
so placed that it can't be changed, and I don't see how they could 
shrink very much. You know the bone on the end of the body shell 
will shrink some, but that eye-socket measurement is better than any 
thing which you have got now. 

Mr. Sweet. What would the length be in that form of measure- 
ment to correspond to the 104 inches ? 

Mr. YouxG. Well, it would be considerably smaller than the block 
measure which is used now. Just what it is I don't know. Perhaps 
somebody here can tell. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Young, coming for a moment to the double- 
standard measurement, I would like to ask you what, in your opin- 
ion, would be the effect on the lobster trade — say, in Boston — of a 
prohibition on the sale of lobsters below 9 inches and over 104 inches ? 

Mr. YouxG. Well, what the people demand for lobsters, what they 
want more than anything, is a lobster that will average from a pound 
to a pound and three-quarters. 

Dr. Smith. What will be the length of a 1^-pound lobster? 

Mr. YouxG. A lobster weighing If pounds would be somewhere 
near 11 inches, I should say. We used to figure that a 104-inch lob- 
ster weighed about a pound and a half. And a 9-inch lobster will 
weigh not quite a pound — perhaps average a little less than a pound. 
The double-standard law from 10| to 13, I should say, would be as 
small as I should want to see it. 

Dr. Smith. Let me ask, Avhat proportion of the lobsters handled 
in the trade in Boston run over 12 inches in length ? 

Mr. YouxG. Why, at certain seasons of the year we have more 
than others. The earlv summer — -in eTune — our lobsters from certain 
places, run pretty large. We have what we call a lot of jumbo lob- 
sters. We have certain places in New Brunswick where we get 
jumbo lobsters at certain times of the year. But they are not a 
popular lobster to-day on the market. I think the average lobster, 
as I say. will weigh somewhere about a pound and a half to 2 
pounds. 

Dr. Smith. Would there be great harm done to the lobster trade 
of Boston if there were a prohibition on the sale of lobsters over 
12 inches in length? Would a great shortage result from such a 
prohibition ? 

Mr. YouxG. There would not be any more shortage than is coming 
along now. But it would be very hard pulling just the same. It is 



188 AMERICAN-CANADTAN FISllHRIES CONFERENCE. 

t>vtliii<i" worse aiul worse now. AVe hww n liKle timo in tlx^ sprino; 
Avhere tluM'o are lots of lobsters; the i-est of tlu> time lobsters are a 
luxury. 

Dr. Smith, lii \ iew of the fact that these \ery larii'e lobsters 
are not in such dc'niand in the trade, and in view of the fact \Yhich 
the Chief Justice has brouoht out that these laroe lobsters pro- 
duce an infinitely greater number of eg"gs than the lobsters of 
smaller size — the increase beino- in i>eometrical progressicm, as a mat- 
ter of fact — it has been sugo-ested that it would be proper, in order 
to conserxe the present diminishing supply and to attempt to restore 
the former abundance of the lobster, to prohibit the catching and 
selling of lobsters, say over 12 inches in length. "What would be your 
own judgment as to the wisdom of such a measure? 

Mv. ^'oiiN(;. AVell, 1 personally think that a 10]-incli hiAv would be 
enough. Of course, if we stop catching lobsters altogether for a 
period of 5 or 10 years we would have more lobsters. If Ave did not 
catch lobsters over 11 inches long, we would have more, to be sure. 
But from a practical standpoint, I think a 10|-inch law, properly en- 
forced, would be enough. That, I think, has been illustrated in the 
State of Maine. In spite of the fact that there have been hundreds of 
thousands of lobsters taken out of that State the last few- years, the 
lobster Kshing is good in the State of Maine during the season. 

Dr. S^iiTFT. It is, however, a fact, I believe, that the present catch 
of lobstei's in Maine is about one-fourth what it was -20 yeai's ago^ 

Mr. YouN(^. I think likely. I think very likely. 

Dr. Sivirrii. And the only reason the fishing is possible is that the 
fishermen are getting thi-ee. four, or five times as much per pound as 
they did 20 years ago. 

Mr. YoiTNO. But, as a matter of fact, they ha^e been taking chicken 
lobsters out of the State of Maine for 20 years, anyhow. They have 
been taking lots of them every year. Xot people foreign to the Stato 
I don't mean, but people in business right in the State have shipped 
them through. Shipped them through into New York before we ever 
had a 0-inch law in Massachusetts, and made a business of it. 

Dr. SMrrn. We do not know whether the general lobster fishery 
as t'onducted on the coasts of the various States can be regulated 
through Federal enactment; but it has been suggested as on.e of 
the numerous measures that have been reconnnended to save the sitna- 
tion that there be established on the coast of each of the lobster- 
producing States a zone or area in Avhich all lobster fishing should be 
])rohibited for a term of yeai-s. What, in your ojiinion. would be the 
etfect of such legislation as that? 

Mr. YoFNG. Well, I think if yon w'ere going to do it, stop it 
altogether: not any particular place, not any particular locality. I 
think the lobster conies inshore and goes offshore — craAvls oifshore. 

Dr. SMrrii. It was for that very reason that it was suggested 
that areas be established on the coasts of the \arious States, be- 
cause any prohibition of fishing in those areas would aifect the 
al)uiulance of lobsters there and not have any infinence on the con- 
tiguous parts of the coast. So that if you found an area where the 
lobsters had been so much depleted that fishing was scarcely profit- 
able and established therein a close season of, say, three or five years. 
>ou mioht be able to do something to restore the industry. 



AMERICAI^-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEjSTCE. 139 

Mr. Young. AXeW, that might be so. But they have zones in Maine 
where they do practically that same thing, only it is for certain 
months of "^the year — in the eastern part of Maine. 

Dr. Smith. Your own statement has shown that the short season 
or closed time does not have much effect, because immediately on its 
expiration the fishermen resume operations on a much larger scale 
and negative the results of the close time. 

Mr. Young. That is my idea of it. I think if you are going to 
make a zone in Massachusetts you had better cut Massachusetts right 
out altogether. But it would not be hardly fair to the people, per- 
haps, to" allow other States to do lobster business and not allow 
Massachusetts to do it. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Young, are you sure that the number of 
vessels engaged in this offshore well smack fishery is not over four? 

Mr. Young. I am not absolutely sure; no; but I don't think there 
were over four there last year — or five. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know whether those vessels which en- 
gaged in it last year found it profitable or not? 

Mr. Young. I don't think they did, because I have had the owners 
of those vessels tell me they wouldn't send them there again — some 
of them. 

Secretary Redfield. Do vou regard, then, that offshore lobster 
fishing is practically a dying industry? 

Mr. Young. Why, I think so; but there may be somebody come 
along who wants to exploit this, probably. Some lobster fisherman 
may want to try it. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it, in your judgment, of sufficiently serious 
volume to have any marked weight upon the supply of the industry? 

Mr. Young. I don't think so. What few they catch are way outside 
the o-mile limit. It looks big to the fishermen in shore who can't 
get out, and it makes them feel bad. I don't blame them; it is a 
hard proposition. I should like to see it stopped, reall}^ 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Young, is it or is it not the fact that the 
difficulty with the business is not only the difference in the laws of 
which you speak, but in the fact that such laws as there are are not 
strictly enforced? 

Mr. Young. Certainly. 

Secretary Redfield. It has been suggested that a Federal statute, 
for which there is precedent in existing law, be passed which would 
prohibit the entrance into any port of the United States or the trans- 
mission in interstate commerce within the United States of any 
lobster caught in contravention of any State lav/ or of any law of 
another country. Would or would not such a law as that be, in 
yoTU' judgment, effective? 

Mr. Young.' Why, I think it Avould provided we had a law here — 
for instance, if we had a 10^-inch law in this country and Ave could 
stop the importation of lobsters of less than 10,^ inches into the coun- 
try I think it would be a good thing. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, the lack of enforcement of the law 
means, does it not, that Avhatever the length permitted by law, lob- 
sters shorter than that are caught and sold ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. So that the law which I speak of — its effect 
would be, first, for example, to prohibit their entrance to this port; 



140 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

iiiul second, if they got into the port woukl prohibit their being 
shipi)e(l out of Massachusetts, and woidd stop such viohitioii, would 
it not? 

Mr. Young. Certainly. 

Secretary Kkdimklo. lint as you think of it, does it seem to you 
an effective measure? 

jVIr. YouNo. AVhy, yes; it Avould be right along those lines. But 
don't you know that a lot of these short lobsters that are used are 
used at the seashore? They are caught right there and held right 
there. Any of you gentlemen who go to the State of Maine in the 
summer time know that. You go down there and eat short lobsters. 

Secretary Ivkdfieu). Of coui'se, the Federal statute can not oper- 
ate within tlie State, but it could prohibit the entrance of short 
lobsters into any port and their transmission out of that port. So 
that, for examide, it would stop the shii)]nng to New York from 
this locality, or woidd stop the entrance into the ])ort of New York 
of any vessel cariwing those. I Avill :ask Dr. Smith if there is not a 
precedent for such a law already existing in connection with the 
sponges from Florida. 

Dr. SiviTTH. That seems to be a similar case, where it has 
been foimd necessary, in order to save the supply of commercial 
sponges on the coast of Florida, to i^rohilnt the destruction of sponges 
less than a certain number of inches in diameter, and the law reaches 
such otfen(]ers by proliibiting the landing at any point in the United 
States of any sponges less than a certain size. 

INIr. Yot'NG. Well, the greater part of the lobsters coming into 
Boston go out of the State — that is, a good proportion of tliem — 
and that would be effective and it would stop tlie inclination to bring 
them in if they couldn't ship them out. 

Secretai'y Redfiei.d. Have you any idea, Mr. ^'oung, of the aver- 
age earnings of the Maine coast lobster fishermen, or on the Massa- 
chusetts coast? 

Mr, Young. Why, I haven't an accurate idea. I had a fisherman 
in the sho]3 the other day from Maine, and he is as good a fisherman 
as any nuin, I suppose, and he told me he stocked $2,400 — $2,200— 
the year before last. Then he goes on to tell me that considering the 
expense of his gear and lobster traps, and his boat, I would be sur- 
prised to know how little he had left for himself when he got 
(lirough. But T think he is above the average. 

vSocretary Ivkukikij). Did he tell you wliat he liad left? 

Mr. Young. No; he didn't tell me. 

Chief fJustice ITazrn. Hoav niany months in the year would he 
engage in fishing? 

Mr. YoiTNG, Probably start in the 1st of May and fish up to 
Thanksgiving time. Perhaps the middle of December 

Chief Justice TTazen. That is November. 

Mr. Young. The last of November or the first of December. Per- 
hajis the middle or the last of November, if the weather kept good. 

C'hief flustice Hazkx. Engaging in fishing a little over seven 
months, then? 

Mr. Young. Seven months. 

Secretary 1vei>kiei.i). Would you favor a re(|uest on the part of the 
Food Vdministration, backed up by the Bureau of Fisheries and 
operating through the State committees of defense in every State 



AMERICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 141 

and the food administrator in every State, appealing to the people 
of the country to cease buying lobsters for a period ? 

Mr. Young. I should not favor that, because I am in the lobster 
business. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you. 

Mr. Young. I don't know Avhy that would be necessary. If a num 
will eat a lobster, he won't eat a piece of beefsteak. Perhaps it 
costs him more mone}^ But if he eats lobster, he is conserving some- 
thing else that is a luxury. And if he can afford to buy lobster and 
pay for it, why let him buy and pay for it. He is saving something 
else which is really necessary. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Saving beef or bacon. 

Secretary Redeield. Saving beef or bacon ; yes. 

Mr. Young. Saving beef or bacon. 

Secretary Redfield. I only mentioned it to get your idea as to 
what was possible. 

Mr. Young. It is possible. It is a luxury which can be gotten 
along without. 

Secretary Redfield. But isn't it a fact that the country ought not 
to get along without any productive industry which can be saved? 

Mr. Young. That is true. 

Secretary Redfield. And the point of view ought to be, should 
it not, putting the industry upon a permanent basis? 

Mr. Young. If we can do it. 

Secretary Redfield. If it can be done. 

Mr. Young. I would like to see it done that way. 

Secretary Redfield. I can remember very well. Mr. Young. v,dien, 
at my house in Maine 15 years ago, I could get all the lobsters I 
Avanted at 25 cents apiece ; I can't do it now. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Down in the maritime provinces all 3^011 
had to do when the tide was out w^as to go around with a hook and 
pull them out from under the rocks. 

Mr. Young. I know 15 years ago you could go down in Maine and 
buy them for 50 cents a dozen. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN G. COX, OF THE CONSOLIDATEB 

LOBSTER CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Cox, what is your business ? 

Mr. Cox. Connected with the Consolidated Lobster Co. 

Secretary Redfield. How are your operations conducted, Mr. 
Cox? ■ 

Mr. Cox. Our operations are conducted mostly by smacks. We 
send out after lobsters. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you sending out some of these well 
smacks to the Nova Scotia coast, Mr. Cox? 

Mr. Cox. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. How many are you sending ? 

Mr. Cox. What do you mean? By fishing on the outside? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Mr. Cox. We had tw^o in that operation last year. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you going to do it again this next 
summer ? 



142 AMKUK'AN-CANADIAN FISIIKRIKS CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Cox. No, sir; wo are out of the business, ^^'e are out of il. 
No more. 

Secretary Rkdkield. Why? 

Mr. Cox. AVell. Ave didii't find it profitable hist year, so that we 
liave (juit. I can tell yon faithfully we are all through ou that line. 

Secretary Kkdkikld. Who else is in the l)usiness. if you don't mind 
saying'? If you do, don't saj. 

Mr. Cox. In this same line you s[ioke about ? 

Secretary llEninELD. Yes. 

Mr. Cox. I believe there is only one more. The Boston Lobster 
Co., 1 think, o})erated one smack there last year besides ours. 

Seci'etary Ivkdkiklo. Am 1 correct, then, in understanding from 
yon and from Mr. Young together, that you had tw'o, and the Boston 
Lobster Co. had one, and Mr. Young had one, and that was all last 
year ? 

Mr. Young. Excuse me: I had none last year. I haven't had any 
for a number of years. 

Secretary Ivkhkikld. I beg your pardon; I didn't mean to misrep- 
resent you. Then there Avere only three last year? 

Mr. Cox. Only three, I guess, last year. 

Secretary Ivkdi'iklu. Now, search your memory, Mr. Cox. We 
want to get the facts — that is all we want. Three was the limit, was 
it. last year, so far as you know? 

Mr. Cox. So far as I kno>>'. 

Secretary Ivkdfieu). And are the geutliMuen of ihc l>oston Lobster 
Co. here to-day to speak for themselves? 

Mr. Cox. I don't know, sir. 

Sei'retary Rkdfiki-d. Is there anybody here representing the Bos- 
ton Lobster Co. ? 

A Voice. I can get them here if you want them here. 

Secretary Kkoimku). I think it might be vei-y desirable, iuasnuich 
as this subject has taken this comparatively new phase that has 
been explained by Mr. Young and Mr. Cox. I think it would be as 
Avell to get the whole thing. 

Chief Justire IIazen. It is well to get the whole business. 

Secretary IvKDKiKi.n. It atl'ects the situation in- certain particu- 
lars and makes it clearer than before. I Avant to say that Ave appre- 
ciate your testimony and INIr. Young's very highly. You did not 
find the business profitable. What is the reason for that, IVEr. Cox? 

Mr. Cox. "Well, on account of the si/e of the lobsters, for one thing. 
The Aery large lobsters Ave got np there in that locality — they are 
great big lobsters and hard to sell, for one thing; and another thing, 
the crew don't get enough to make it pay. 

Dr. SAirrii. ^'ou mean the native fishei-meu did not get enough 
to make it i^av or the men you sent on the \essel from Boston ? 
Mr. Cox. Well, I Avonld say that those are all native fishermen 
that Ave had in these vessels. They all came from the Provinces. 

Secretary Bkukikko. Did you have American ollicers ou your 
A^essel ? 

Mr. Cox. Yes. sir. They Avere naturalized; yes. sir. But they 
are all. practically, from their oAvn country, or from the British 
Provinces, and from that localitA' near Avhere theA^ fish. They leave 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKENCE. 143 

their traps there and after the close season, in June, go down and 
start in witli their own gear. 

Secretary Redfield. Is tlie capital invested in your business 
American capital? 

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And are the active oAvners of 3'our business 
native-born Americans ? 

Mr. Cox. AYell, I wouldn't sa}- that they are all native born. 

Secretary Redfield. What I want to get at is, whether it is in 
am' degree a fact that natives of Canada have come here and are op- 
erating this business, using their fellow countrymen there in the way 
I speak of, hj taking possible advantage of American citizenship 
as masters of vessels^ 

Mr. Cox. Well, they are all naturalized. 

Secretary Redfield. The captains, of course, have to be. 

Mr. Cox. Yes; but the other crew were not. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you a native-born American? 

]Vli'. Cox. Xo, sir ; I was born in Xova Scotia myself, in 1859. 

Seci-etary Redfield. I congratulate you on being a 3'ear younger 
rhan I. What is your outlook at the lobster business, as you see it 
now, Mr. Cox I 

Mr. Cox. Well, my views ai'e practicall}' the same as Mr. Young's, 
who just preceded me. I think we ought to have a Federal law. 

Secretary Redfield. Would you favor a laAv which Avould pro- 
hibit the entrance into an American port of lobsters caught contrary 
to the hnv of any State or country, and also which would prohibit 
their transportation in interstate commerce ( 

Mr. Cox. Is that just coming in from Xova Scotia? 

Secretary Redfield. Xo ; I mean this, to explain it : Let us sup- 
pose a man catches an 8-inch lobster, or any lobster which is contrary 
to the laAv of the place where he gets it and then goes offishore for 
several days and meets accidentally a vessel offshore, and brings 
it into the port of Boston, or the port of Gloucester, or any other 
port. The suggestion is to enact a law which would prohibit those 
goods thus caught contrary to the law of the place where they were 
taken from entering the port in the first place; and if by any acci- 
dent they got in would prohibit their being shipped out of that port 
in inerstate commerce beyond the confines of the State. 

Mr. YouxG. Well, if the Federal law was passed so that the meas- 
ure was the same in each and every State it would cure the whole 
thing, wouldn't it? 

Secretary Redfield. That is exactly Avhat the object of it Avould 
be, Mr. Cox. To provide a laAv which would have the same bearing 
precisely everywhere, which would be 'enforced by an entirely inv 
partial authority from without, and which would have the double 
bearing of prohibiting, first, and preventing so far as humanly possi- 
ble, the entrance into any port of the goods unlawfully captured: 
and secondly, if they should have entered, would prohibit their move- 
ment in the commerce of the country outside of the confines of any 
State. That would be the purpose. Such a laAv, if enforced, you 
would regard as effective? 

Mr. Cox. Yes; I think it would be. 

Mr. Sweet. And you Avould favor it, Avould you? 

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. 



144 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Cox, Avhai would be your idea of the ualuro aud 
scope of a Federal lobster law ^ 

Mr. Cox. AVell, I think the measure should be the same in each and 
every State. That would be better for all concerned. 

Dr. SAirrii, Are vou pre})ared to su^'uest what that measure ono-ht 
tobe^ ■ ^^ - 

Mr. Cox. Well, I think a lOl-inch lobster— I think they ought to 
come to that. 

Dr. S^EiTi-i, And you would have that apply to the States to the 
westward where a 9-inch law has always prevailed? 

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. Have you ever considered the matter of a uiaxiuuun 
size, Mr. Cox? 

Mr. Cox. No; I have not. 

Chief Jnstice Hazkn. Have yon had any experience in connection 
Avitli artificial propagation of lobsters? 

Mr. Cox. No; I have not; no, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What w^ould be your opinion as to the 
efficacy of a measure which would require the ring through which 
the. lobster goes into the trap to be not less than a certain size, and 
that would provide a space between the slats large enough to enable 
a lobster not 9 inches or 10| inches to escape. 

Mr. Cox. I don't think it would be practicable. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Why? 

Mr. Cox. Well, on account of — as far as iNIr. Young said, they 
pnll them up there; they get them anywhere; they hang on the sides 
or someAvhere. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, if you ha\'e the ring of proper size at 
the entrance to the trap, how could a larger lobster get in? 

Mr. Cox. Well, they don't get in now, I suppose. Yon would 
catch about the same size they do now\ I suppose. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Xo; but you have the ring made so that the 
lobster larger than 10^1 inches can't get through the ring. How^ could 
any larger lobster get through? 

Mr. Cox. That is a pretty hard question to answer. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, I suppose a lobster goes through head 
first, doesn't he? 

Mr. Cox. He goes through either way. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Wouldn't it be possible to regulate the size 
so that a lobster over that size wouldn't get through? 

Mr. Cox. T don't think so. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You d(m't think it would be possible? 

Mr. Cox. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I doM't understand the reason. You are a 
practical man in the business and I am not. But what is the reason 
it would not be? 

Mr. Cox. I think a lobster that would go into that ring would go 
in there anyway. I don't see where the ring w ould cut a great deal 
of figure. Of course it would in a certain w^ay ; but a 12-inch lobster 
would go in there if the ring was as thick as a 7 or 8-inch lobster. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Wouldn't it entirely depend upon the size 
of the ring? 



AMEBICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 145 

Mr. Cox. Yes; it would. 

Chief Justice Hazex. A 7 or 8 inch lobster could go through a 
ring that a 12-inch lobster couldn't go through, couldn't it I 

Mr. Cox. Yes: I think so. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I am trying to get some information on this 
subject, because it is said that is a way you can regulate the size. 

Mr. Cox. I don't believe it could be regulated that way. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You don't believe it could, from your ex- 
perience ? Xow. do you think it is possible 

Mr. YouxG. I would like to answer that question myself. Mr. Chair- 
man. Lobsters are like men — some are long and lanky and some are 
stout. Xow. you must consider that. 

Chief Justice Hazex. There is a general average, though. I sup- 
pose. 

Mr. YouxG. There is a general average: yes; to be sure. But you 
will catch a lot of lobsters you don't want to catch, and you won't catch 
those that you do want to catch. But as long as there is any bait in 
the trap he will get his claw in that ring and will get his claw in the 
trap and come to the surface — as long as there is any bait in that trap. 
It is pretty hard to regulate it by the ring or the width of the slats. 
Another thing on the width of the slats — if the fishermen are honest 
and put the slats on dry and then put the traps in the water they 
will swell. It is pretty hard to judge by that. It would be awful 
hard to regulate the width between the slats on those lobster traps. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do 3"ou agree to that. Captain? 

Capt. Carl C. Yottxg. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Young, may I ask you a question? Assuming a 
hungry lobster desires to get into a trap for the bait, the ring of 
which is not much greater in diameter than his own diameter, is 
there a po:^sibilitv that such a lobster would become jammed and 
would prevent the trap from fishing? 

Mr. Alfred L. Youxg. Why, I suppose that is a possibility, but not 
a p^obabilit3^ 

Dr. Smith. Xot a probability ? 

Secretary Redfield. Well, isn't it a fact Mr. Young, you say that 
when there is bait in the trap the lobster will try to get in any way. 
If he can't get in the ring he will get in the side or he will hang on to 
the trap and be pulled out of the water. 

Mr. YorxG. It is a fact ; we know it. 

Secretary Redfield. It is a fact, isn't it ? 

Mr. YoTTXG. You catch the best lobsters on the outside of the trap, 
sometimes. 

Secretary Redfield. I have seen it 50 times. 

Mr. YoirxG. Certainly. Pull them up with the trap and take them 
off in the boat. 

Mr. ForxD. It may be of some interest to merely state some ex- 
periments that were carried on up on the coast of Xova Scotia in 
regard to the efficacy of regulating the space between the two lower 
laths on either side. We set some traps so arranged, baited, and put 
others with no bait in them : put lobsters in them and put them out. 
We found in the instances in which the traps were not baited that 
all the lobsters that were small enough went out. And so in the trap 
where the bait was out the lobsters went out. And it may also be 
51950—18 10 



14(^ AMKETCAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

stated that following tliat experiment — thouiih it was not adi)pted in 
Canada and has not been vet — that NeAvi'oundland took it np two 
Years ag"o, and Newfoundland is following it to the present time and 
using it as of very material advantage as controlling the minimum size 
of lobsters that may be taken. That is the existino- law in Newfound- 
land. 

Secretarv l\KnFiF.i.i>. There was Due interesting uuitter brought out 
m the testiuumy of ]Mr. Yomig and ^Ir. Cox which 1 want to be sure 
and miderstand correctly, and that is that when the lobster passes a 
certain size he is not as marketable. That. T think, is the fact. 

Mr. Young. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And about what size would you put that'^ 

Mr. Yoi'NG. AVhen a lobster is ;> pounds or over we do not want 
him — do not like to take him. 

Secretary Kkufiei.!). I would like to ask Dr. Smith if lobsters 
larger than that are not the most productive^ 

Dr. Smith. A lobster weighing 8 pounds is two ov three times 
as productive of eggs as one weighing a pound and a half. 

Secretarv Redfield. What does that mean in figures, approxi- 
mately? Go outside the facts — imagine a 4-pound lobster. What 
Avill that produce in eo'as as compared with a pound and a half lob- 
ster I 

Dr. S:\trru. I can work it out for you in tabular form very quickly. 
For every increase of '2 inches in size there is double the uiunber of 
eggs produced. 

Secretary Redfiejld. So that you mean by that 

Dr. Smith. Say, starting with a 10-inch lobster, which we will 
assume produces 10.000 eggs, a li*-inch lobster will produce 20,000 
eggs and a 14-inch lobster will produce 40.000 eggs, until you get 
the maximum, Avhich is something over 100,000 egg-s. 

Secretary Kedfieid. The interesting part of that, it seems to me, 
is to be found in the fact that the lobsters which are of the least 
conmiercial value are of the largest value for reproduction. 

Dr. Smith. For keeping np the supply. 

Secretary- Redfield. That is a very important fact, if it is a fact, 
]Mr. Y'oung. 

Mr. Y'orNG. ]\Iay 1 ask the doctor a qtu^stion? Wouhl it be more 
valuable to liberate the lobsters u.p to lOA inches than it would to 
save those over 15 from a propagation standpoint? 

Dr. S:NriTu. Well, at th.e present tinu^ the productive capacity 
of the lobster scales is much greater for the smaller lobsters, be- 
cause those lobsters are much more numerous. In normal times, 
before man had begun to make his depredations, it was the larger 
lobsters on which the future supply depended. So that if Ave could 
secure anything like a reestablishment of the normal by any protec- 
tive legislation which Avas feasible, then the future lobster supply, in 
mv opinion, ought to be safeguarded by the protection of these older 
lobsters, Avhich have the least market value. Does that answer your 
question ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. AVhat I have always thought was that a lob- 
ster — if you allow a lobster to get to lOi inches, he has had time 
enough after maturity to produce his kind once or twice, and it 
would be more ett'ective, considering the large number that would re- 
Di'oduce, than to save those over lo inches. I can't help but think 



AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 147 

that if you kill all your chickens you can't get any old hens some day 
or other. If you catch all your small lobsters, you will not get any 
old lobsters over 13 inches a little later. That is my point. 

Secretary Redfield. That is a good point. Has the gentleman 
come from the Boston Lobster Co.? [No response.] Pending his 
coming I want to raise another phase of the subject having to do 
with the general proposition which we are studying on the matter 
of the mutual relations of the Canadian and American vessels. I 
am a little bit surprised and very much interested not to hear any- 
one raise the matter of the Canadian bounty upon fishing. I would 
like to ask Capt. Young whether that is, in his mind, an important 
factor. 

Capt. Carl C. Young. I Avill take that up in Gloucester to-mor- 
row. To my mind it is not such a great factor. 

Secretary Redfield. It is not such an important factor? 

Capt. Young. No. I do not really think so. I do not really konw 
how large it would amount to to-day, but I was talking in regard to 
that the other day, and I thought it amounted to pretty nearly $10 
a ton per vessel. 

Secretary Redfield. That is the reason why I am bringing the 
matter up. 

Chief Justice Hazen. After the abrogation of the treaty of Wash- 
ington there was an arbitration for injury done to the fishing, 
and the result of that arbitration was an award of $5,-500,000. Of 
that amount $1,500,000 went to Newfoundland and $4,000,000 came 
to the Dominion of Canada. The Parliament of Canada decided to 
make a fund of that, and it was invested at 4 per cent, and the in- 
terest was to be paid every year for the encouragement of deep-sea 
fishing and the encouragement of construction of fishing vassels. 
And it amounts to this: $100,000 is divided every year among all 
those people engaged in our fisheries. No fishing vessel can get over 
$80 — the most it can get is $1 a ton up to $80. The men on the 
fishing vessel — the most they have ever got — it varies — the most they 
have ever got is $6,15. The boats get $1 apiece. Those engaged 
in the boat fishing get $1 apiece for each boat and the men engaged 
in the boats something like $4.25. Sometimes it runs down as low 
as $3 something. It varies with the number of men engaged in 
the business. I have heard this matter discussed as being a large 
bounty. I have heard it discussed that a bounty was paid on the 
catch of the fish, as is the case with France. The men go out from 
France and get a bounty from the French Government. But the 
Canadian bounty is what I have told you. There is no $10 a ton; 
the most is $1 a ton, and that is limited to vessels of 80 tons. 

Capt. Young. I beg your pardon ; I know better, because I know 
there is no vessel that gets over $100. I meant when I said that, 
$1 a ton. Did I say $10 a ton? That is where I made a mistake, 
because I know it was $1 a ton. It is from $8 to $12 for the boat. 

Chief Justice Hazen. No ; each boat owner gets $1. 

Capt. Young. From $8 to $10. 

Chief Justice Hazen. No: it doesn't amount to that. Each mar. 
on a boat gets from $3 odd to $4 odd, each man on a vessel gets 
from $5 odd to $6 odd, depending on the number engaged in the 
industry. Of course, the total amount can never exceed $160,000, 
or 4 per cent of the $4,000,000, which was Canada's share paid by 



148 AMEBIC AN-CANAD1.\K FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 

the United States, you understand, under the arbitration which fol- 
lowed the treaty of Washington. 

Capt. Young. Well, I meant all right. 

Chief Justice Hazex. There is no doubt about that ; you always 
mean right, Captain. You have convinced us of that. 

Secretary Eedfield. Now, there are certain other suggestions: 
which I should like to make for your consideration and for the in- 
formation of the commission, asking you to advise us of the facts, 
either now or later at the session of this afternoon, if you have any 
facts or know of anyone who has any facts which bear upon the 
matters wdiich are before us. It is the information of the commis- 
sion in a very general way that the food supply of Great Britain 
from fishing has been cut in half by the war, or more than cut in 
half by the w^ar. 

Chief Justice Hazex. It is not a third. 

Secretary Eedfield. The chief justice corrects me and says it is 
only about a tliird of what it was; that substantially^ the entire 
trawler fleet of Great Britain, with such additions as they have been 
able to make to it, is occupied in the war ; that there have been very 
serious losses to that fleet of vessels destroyed by mines, torpedoes, and 
by naval operations generally; that in addition to that the fleet has 
been under wear and tear and the war has made impossible the up- 
keep to any normal degree for a period of nearly or quite three years 
past, and that that condition still continues; that the shipbuilding 
capacity of Great Britain is overtaxed with the demands of the navy 
and of the merchant fleet ; that for a considerable period after the 
v\^ar the shipbuilding industr}^ of Great Britain will necessarily be 
severely taxed in order to restore the merchant fleet to its former di- 
mensions. Incidental to that j^ou, of course, know that so great has 
been the demand for shipbuilding in Great Britain that, although the 
war has been in progress and her navy in active use during the war, 
it is officially, I believe, published that the navy of Great Britain is 
to-day double the size it was three and one-half years ago. Conse- 
OjUently, the commission have this general information : That the fish- 
ing fleet — the steam trawler fleet I am speaking of now^ — of Great 
Britain is in a condition where it is quite unequal to the demands 
made upon it for food, and that the close of the war seems likelj^ to 
find it, if the w^ar shall long continue, even less equal to meeting those 
demands. The people of Great Britain have made great sacrifices in 
the way of their food — greater than we have jet dreamed of mak- 
ing — and they must look forward to a considerable time following*^ 
the war in which it Avill be necessary to restore this fleet to its normal 
dimensions, which will take a considerable time, if you remember the 
demands, to build some millions of tons of merchant shipping at that 
time. I am not telling you all these things to inform you ; I am 
speaking of them as the information which in a very general way is 
before us. I am not making an official statement of fact, but simply 
summarizing briefly the information we have, in the thought that 
there will be those among you wdio, having knowdedge of the matter, 
}nay yourselves inform us later as to whether in any degree these 
things are right or wrong, incorrect or correct. 

The apparent situation that is brought before the commission, 
then, is one in wdiich it does not seem to be physically possible to 
have any very rapid or any very large entry from the other side of 



AMEEICAISr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 149 

an}' new element in the fishing competition of the North Althintic 
from the source that I have suggested. If that is true, to the extent 
it is true it is a very important factor in the matter that we are dis- 
cussing. And I think perhaps it would only be fair to say, in behalf 
of the general fishing fraternity at large, that there perhaps is no 
more wonderful story, full of romance, of heroism, of self-sacrifice, 
than that same story of the English trawlers in the North Sea during 
the three winters and summers that have gone by, when, without re- 
gard to their own safety or comfort, they have fought the fight 
in which you and I are just as much interested as they, at a fearful 
cost to themselves, and v/ithout thought of life or anything of the 
kind. It is one of the most heroic stories in the world — that of these 
merchant fishermen called into this very terrible service. They are 
becoming more familiar Avith German mines than they were with the 
fish which it was their habit to catch. But it has a bearing upon the 
general economic situation of the world. I want to ask if there is 
anybody here who is able to inform the commission as to the extent 
to which fresh fish are brought into Boston or Gloucester from other 
countries than Canada. Is there brought in here any quantity of 
fish from Newfoundland? 

Mr. Geogre E. Willey. I think thi-ough the bureau we could 
give you the figures of the imports from Novo Scotia — in fact, all 
points — of fi'esh fish for any period you might like. 

Secretary Redfield. I think we can get the customs records, and 
have asked for them. But what I want to get at very candidly is 
the extent to which this proposition we are discussing, of allowing 
Canadian vessels to come from the banks direct into Boston or else- 
Avhere and to go back direct to the banks — the extent to which that 
really comes as a factor in the normal operation of the business. 
Now, if we have got plants enough — American plants enough— 
to supply all the demands of this country, that is one thing; if 
we have not, that is a very different thing. If we need for our 
own food supply to call upon other countries for supplies of 
fresh fish, and are doing it, then the question whether we will 
facilitate in a small degree the movement of that supply is very 
different from what it would be if we had an abundant oversupply 
and were simply adding to the facilities in the way I speak of. 
Now, is it not a fact that fresh fish, or fish of some kind, is imported 
not only from Newfoundland but even from across the sea? Is it 
not a fact that fresh fish is imported — or fish — either fresh fish or 
salted fish, is imported from the Irish coast into New England? 
Isn't that a fact? It is, is it not, sir? 

Mr. C. F. WoNSON. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT BY MR. C. F. WONSON, REPRESENTING GLOUCESTER 

SALT FISH CO. 

Mr. WoNSON. I was waiting for the commission to come to 
Gloucester; I was simply a spectator, and I would rather be a lis- 
tener than to talk. But your remarks give me an idea, and I think 
I can, from my standpoint at least, furnish a little light. We in 
Gloucester have conveniences as a very large distributor of fish food, 
particular salt-fish foods, but we have not, and have not had for some 
little time — and from the indications now under the new demand 



150 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

which has been created by the Government piiblicit}^ — Ave have not 
the facilities for supplying the material. There is no question about 
that; and I think that when you come to Gloucester to-morrow, 
you gentlemen, jou will get unanimous testimony to that effect. 
That must be the honest presentation. We have not the material; 
we have not the conveniences for securing the material from our 
own American vessels. The raw material must come from outside, 
both fresh and salt. As a distributing center I think we have the 
plant sufficient. We can do a very much larger business than we 
are doing at the present time. The unprecedented demand which 
has been created from one cause and another — principally, I think, 
from the publicity work of the Government — has been such this year 
that none of the plants in Gloucester, even the largest, have been 
able to supply anywhere near the demand. My own plant, which 
supplies wholesale a half million dollars worth of fish products, 
has turned down this present year more business than ever, and that 
business in itself is twice as much as the business lias ever developed 
in any jeixr previous in the last 18 years. It has been a peculiar 
situation. The demand for the product has been such, and so in- 
sistent, that jobbing houses have been apparently willing to pay 
almost any price — any asking price. The ordinary demand from 
regular customers has given each house so much business that few, 
if any, of us have been desirous of any new business. And time 
after time, in replying to a request for quotations, prices have been 
named to customers that were extortionate, and, I will tell you 
frankly, simply because we did not want the business. But we 
couldn't refuse them — the order came back. 

Now, that is the condition generally, and it is a condition that is 
not going to be materially affected after this war is over. The 
country is being educated, thanks to the United States Government, 
that fish is a pretty good thing to eat. We people in the fish busi- 
ness — and I, like my friend here, have been in it all my life, and 
my father and grandfather before me, and we have not had the 
business brains enough to educate the people of this country in re- 
gard to fish. Right in my own town of Gloucester, a fishing town, 
you would think that everybody there would eat fish even out of 
patriotic feeling for the business of the city. On account of the 
present condition and high price of other food products very many 
of my personal friends have asked me to send them over a box of 
fish, and I do so readily. This is something that happened only 
two nights ago. The cashier of one the banks, sitting in the board 
of trade rooms, said, " Have you got any more of that fish? " And 
I said, " Yes; but you haven't used up all I sent you last week? " 
"Yes," he said, "it is all gone; everybody that comes in, my wife 
serves this fish to them, and they say, ' Where did you get that nice 
fish; never had anything like that before'; send me over twice as 
much." He said, "Prior to that box of fish I got from you — and I 
got it because ever^^body was talking fish and I thought it was about 
time for us to help out the situation by eating some fish — but," he 
said, " prior to that box of fish I got from you we hadn't had any fish 
in our house and had not served any on our table for three or four 
years." Now, what do you think of that, gentlemen? And that was 
"not fresh fish, it was cured fish. And that is being done all over 
the country. 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEjSTCE. 151 

Chief Justice IIazek. I think the people throughout the country 
have forgotten how to cook salt fish. There is nothing more de- 
licious. 

Mr. WoNsox. True. Tliat is one thing we have failed to do in the 
salt-fish business. The fresh-fish people haA'e been wiser, and they 
are distributing all over the country pamphlets, recipes, ways of 
cooking fresh fish. We, the salt-fish people, have done it in a small 
way, but not generally. We haven't made it large enough. That is 
the trouble now. Most people don't know how to cook it. It is a 
little more trouble, I will admit, to cook a piece of salt fish pal- 
atably — not only in the cooking but in the preparation and the serv- 
ings — than it is to take a nice sirloin steak and throw it on the 
griddle : but if it is done right, gentlemen, you have one of the most 
delicious dishes you can find anywhere. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I entireb/ agree with 3^011. 

Mr. WoNSON. Now, gentlemen, from a personal standpoint in 
my own particular business, I want material. I do not care where it 
comes from: give me material. And I will put out the goods, sell 
the goods. It is a selfish standpoint. But in the larger aspect of it 
I believe it is for the benefit of the country as a whole, and that is 
what I am working for. I will sacrifice my personal ambition or any 
personal monetary gain for nn^self if any man can show me that 
it is for the good of the country. And this is. And if there was any- 
thing that pleased me last night at the bano.uet it was to hear an 
official of the United States Government put the thing right down 
on a good, square, solid basis. That is the way I like to hear a man 
talk. And, Mr. Secretary, you can reh^ upon me every time; and 
there are a lot of us that vrill back you right up. Now, get the facts — 
and that is exactly what ycu are doing. You are getting the facts, 
the way you are proceeding, to settle the thing. If it hurts me, I will 
stand for it — and ever^^body else will. We have to get over this idea 
that because we are interested in a particular line it has got to be 
]jrotected to the exclusion of every other citizen of the United States. 
That has been done too long, and it has been bad for our country. 
I thank you, gentlemen. By the waj^, I have not given you a chance 
to ask any questions. I will answer any question you ask, if I can. 

Dr. Smith. Mr. Wonson. are you the owner of any fishins' vessels? 

Mr. WoNSON. No, sir. I am a curer and a distributor. 

Dr. Smith. You have been the owner of fishing vessels ? 

Mr. Woxsoi>. Only of small boats, and never remunerative. I 
have always gotten out of it just asquickh' aslcould. But properly 
handled vessel ownership is very remunerative. The fact that it was 
not so in our case was our own fault. We sent vessels for years out 
of Gloucester — a large fleet, as you knoAv. Mr. Smith. I guess we had 
not educated the trade up to eating fish: we gutted the market on 
our own salt fish; paid the vessels nothing. The crews on the co- 
operative plan made very little ; they couldn't maintain themselves 
and families. Yie turned around because we hadn't developed the 
trade. We sold the goods without any profit — hardly enough to pay 
overhead expenses. And it Avas one of the most pitiable things that 
ever happened. Gloucester, which was an old fishing toAvn, having 
developed 15, 20, or 25 individual firms, all vessel OAvners — those fel- 
loAvs Avorked from daAdiglil to dark — economical livers — and thov 



152 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

1 Mil those vessels t'oi- years and years and at the end went bankrupt 
AA-ith an investment of anvAvhere 'from $50,000 to $l>0(),()00 or $800,000, 
and Avent bankru])t simply because we didn't know enouoh about 
the business to develoj) the demand so that i)eoi)le Avere Avillino- to 
l)ay a fair price for a first-class food product. 

Secretary REOKiELn. Mr. Wonson, are you familiar with the city 
of St. Louis? 

jMr. Won SON. I don't knoAv but very little about Avestern cities. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know hoAV fish is sold in St. Louis? 

Mr. WoNSON. Salt fish, you mean? 

Secretary Redfield. Any kind. 

Mr. WoNSON. No; I can't say that I do. 

Secretary Redfield. I am not making' a special point about St. 
Louis, but I am simply si)eakino- of it as a typical inland city. Has 
there ever been, to your knoAvledge, since you have been in the fish 
business, any definite attempt on the ])art of the business at lari^e to 
cidtivate continuously a market for fish in a city like St. Louis ^ 

Mr. WoNSON. None Avhatever in my whole recollection. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, now, do you suppose that the cotton 
merchants send their traveling salesmen to sell cotton goods? They 
do. don't they? 

Mr. WoNSON. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Don't you suppose that the steel mills send 
their traveling salesmen to St. Louis to sell steel? 

JMr. Won SON. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, is it a fact, then, that there has not 
been an attempt on the part of the fishing interests that you repre- 
sent at large to take the same methods that have been used by other 
American industries to establish their products in these great central 
markets? 

Mr. WoNSON. Yes; I must have misunderstood your question. 
That has been done. We send out traveling men 

Secretary Redfield. Yes, I knoAV ; but are they sent out — and this 
is quite important, it seems to me — are they sent out for the purpose 
of training the community in the use of these goods, or are they 
sent out to indi\idual customers Avhom you want to get an order 
from ? 

Mr. WoNsoN. Yes. That is Avhat I thought a''OU meant. No, not 
to any degree; but if you will alloAv me a Avord I Avill say that Ave 
ha.ve one concern in (Tloucester Avhicli has done that to a more or less 
extent. The ]U'esent Gorton-PcAv Co. started in business — Slade 
(Norton Co. — introduced a specialty, and they did that successfully. 
They proved the efficacy of that method. They Avould send out mis- 
sionaries and Avorkmen and create a denuind from the consumer, 
from the householder, for their business. 

SecretaiT Redfield. Was it a successful enterprise? 

JNfr. Won SON. Very; indeed. 

Chief Justice LIazen. Have you sent out people Avho gave demon- 
strations of the methods of cooking salt fish? 

Mr. AVoNsoN. It has not been done to any extent. I think in a 
\ery small Avay through buyers by the Goiton-PeAv people. It has 
been done more by cooking schools in different sections of the country, 
and they have taken OA^er our product, samples, and have demon- 
strated Avhat could be done Avith them. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 153 

Secretary Redfielo. It is possible, in your judgment, Mr. Wonson, 
to add to the demand for fish food on the part of the country's 
population ? 

Mr. WoNSON. Why, it has scarcely been touched, Mr. Secretary, I 
think. 

Secretary Kedfiei.]). You regard the opportunity as open there? 

Mr. WoNsoN. Oh, yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. Well, suppose that each family in the TJnited 
States were induced to use a pound a ^^eek more fish. Figuring on 
20.000,000 families, you avouIcI have approximately 80,000,000 pounds 
a month more fish consumed. Are there facilities known to you to 
>exist to suppl}^ that demand ? 

Mr. WoNSON. Not in this countr}^ 

Secretary Eedfield. Or in Canada? 

Mr. Won SON, No, sir. 

Secretary Redfteld. Are the facilities availalile from any source? 

Mr. Won SON. Not anywhere; no. 

Secretary Redfield. And yet is it not the fact that such a state 
of affairs would still mean that we were eating about onl}^ one-third 
the amount of fish food that other nations eat? 

Mr. Won SON. Surely, 

Secretary Eedfield. That is the fact, is it not ? 

Mr. WoNSON. It is, undoubtedly. 

Secretary Eedfield. Then do the commission gather from what 
you say that there is an untouched opportunity available? 

Mr. WoNSON. Almost. 

Secretary Eedfield. Practically a virgin soil. 

Mr. WoNSON. Almost, sir. It just requires energy and efficient 
management. But as you made the statement, I think, yesterdaj'' or 
last night — while the Government was ]3erfectly ready to supply 
the men and the money to develop this demand, you wanted to be 
iissured of our power to produce the goods. 

Secretary Eedfield. Produce the goods. 

Mr. WoNsoN. You were just right. We can't do it to-day. 

Secretai'v Eedfield. We are ready to put on a man and get in 
behind the projjosition of adding to the fish-food demand, but Ave 
must be reasonably certain that now or in the near future there 
will be created the means of supplying that demand, otherwise we 
will be in a veiy peculiar position of creating a demand for which 
there Avas no supply. Noav, I Avas thinking something of my oAvn 
■experience while on this question, and to my mind — I may be Avrong ; 
I Avant you to correct me if I am — this is a very much larger ques- 
tion, twenty times larger question, than the admission of all the 
A'essels of the av oriel to American ports. The one is by comparison 
trivial; the other is by comparison enormous. If we are right in 
thinking that there exists an unused possibility here, then the serious 
question is, Hoav and Avhere are Ave going to get the means for filling 
the demand? Noav, I can tell you that I knoAv that in the city of 
AYashington there are families that are, so to speak, specializing on 
rabbits to-day. They do not Avant to buy meat — the meat supply is 
scarce — the fish, Avhen you pay 40 cents or 50 cents a pound for hali- 
but, as is charged in the retail market, is expensive, and I Avas in a 
family a short time ago Avhere they soberly Avere buying canvas-back 
ducks, which are common on Chesapeake Bay, relatiA'ely, because they 



154 AMEBIC AK-CAXADl AX ribHiilUES COInFEEENCE. 

Avei'e cheuper than lisli and cheaper than meat. Xoav, these are the 
big things. If it is possible, as we think it is — and we have had 
some experience introducing fish food ourselves — yon find no diffi- 
culty. Dr. Smith, in introducing fish food? 

Dr. Smith. None whatever. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has j^our propaganda in putting fresh fish 
on the farm — in the pond- — been taken up willingly? 

Dr. Smith. It has been taken up with avidity. 

Secretary Eedfield. There is an enormous demand. I speak of 
the ])lan which you may have heard of — of saying to the farmer, 
*" Make a little pond on your farm, dam any old brook you have 
got and get a pond; or if you have got a pond, clean it out; we will 
fm-nish fish to stock youi' pond, and all we will ask you to do is to 
tell us how the old thing works '■ — and that is seized upon. And we 
are taking fish from the Pacific and bringing them into the Plains 
States, and we can't begin to supply the demand. Trainloads won't 
supply it. There is a demand, so far as our experience goes for 
anything. We are running fifty-odd hatcheries in different 
l^arts of the country and there is an untouched field here. I will 
mention now something that New England people smile at, and that 
is the old, despised, New England dogfish, Avhich is now on the 
market as grayfish. I suppose the largest order for canned fish 
ever placed in the ITnited States was placed for an order of gray- 
fish — 43 carloads in one order. An entirely new project. And all 
we could fill, out of that order was 800,000 cans, because we couldn't 
get the tin cans. That shows what is possible to he done. To- 
day the steamers are coming into American ports bringing whale 
meat, which is absorbed at good prices by the Pacific coast, where it 
is served on the tables of all the leading hotels in Seattle, San 
Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. 

A Voice. What is it served as? 

Secretary Eedfield. Whale meat. And in my home, the cook 
that cooked and served whale meat on my table two weeks ago 
doesn't know to this day that she wasn't cooking beef. Now, if 
these things are true— and Mi-. Wonson confirms them in a meas- 
ure — tlien alL we have to do in this country is to get busy to find 
the means of meeting the demand. For I take it that no demand 
of the kind ever grows less, that the taste for fish food has never 
in history been known to go off when once established, and that if 
we can bring the American people up to one-third of the standard 
of Great Britain it must mean for the fishing ports of the countrj^ 
the most strenuous life they ever knew. 

So that instead of saying, " Thou shalt not." must they not in 
self-defense say to everyboch^ who can bring a fish in, be it in a 
canoe or what not. Avherever it may come from — South Africa, 
Canada, Ireland, Liberia — wherever it comes from, " For God's 
sake bring us every fish you can get, because we are going to need it 
all " ? But all we can get for years to come is not going to be suffi- 
cient. Now, candidly, I am afraid I am going to make good on 
my proposition if I can find the man. We have got the money. 
But I am afraid that in six months Ave Avill be up against it. We 
sent a man 1.000 cases of grayfish to Baltimore, thinking they Avould 
last all season. He sold them in a Aveek. It Avas gone. I am afraid 
that at the end of six months Ave Avill be right up against an eni- 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. ' 155 

bargo because there are not physical means sufficient in Canada 
and the United States taken together to furnish the material that 
the country will call for. Now, I hope I am wrong, and I am not 
making a speech here. I want to get the truth, and you know it, 
probabl3^ better than I. We just see one end. 

FUETHER STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN BTJllNS, JR., REPRESENTING 
THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. 

Mr. Burns. Speaking of what this country requires, more par- 
ticularly on the fresh fish, it seems to me that we have not 20,000,000 
families to draw upon. We are necessarily confined to certain ter- 
ritory^ in the shipment of fresh fish. We get some small shipments 
as far West as Chicago on fresh shipments. But most of our native 
codfish, so to speak, come in here in the olcl-fashionecl sailing ves- 
sels and our steam traAvlers, are landed at the port of Boston, and are 
distributed in this vicinity. They go at certain seasons of the year 
as far south as Baltimore and Washington in limited quantities, 
Xew York at the present time is a good-sized market, and Phila- 
delphia and through Pennsylvania and Connecticut and the New 
England States. That takes the bulk of our fish. Now, it is abso- 
lutely impossible to reach many points beyond that region. 

Therefore, naturall}^, we are confined in a smaller territory than 
the whole of the United States for the distribution of fresh fish. 
That, of course, does not appl}^ to Mr. AVonson, because he is in the 
salt-fish business. Thej^ can be landed as long as they have the 
facilities for handling them and can be sent to any distant point. 
But as far as concerns the fresli fish, which is the business of Boston, 
we have to be very careful on the overproduction. At the present 
time anything can be sold at good prices. Taking into consideration 
the fleet equipped to do any fishing, we have working out of Boston 
10 trawlers — or \^•e will say 9^ trawlers, as one of them will not catch 
a full, share — and that has been about the average number of steam 
trawlers occupied in the business for several years since we have been 
doing business. In 1917 these nine vessels produced about 33,000,000 
pounds of fish. Now, we have under construction steam trawlers 
that naturally would be occupied in fishing that are now taken by 
the Government, the Navj^ Department. We v\^ould have added 
within the next 12 months or thereabouts 29 new steam trawlers. 
That is calling those now taken. by the Government as new. In other 
vrords, .we haA^^e seven trawlers which the Navy is using as mine 
sweepers. We have under construction, which are about ready for 
launching, 22 steam trawlers, for the most part of a much larger 
type than the vessels we are now fishing, with the exception of the 
two Gorton-Pew vessels, which are of the full capacity. That is 
29 against 10 that within the next 12 months I believe will be sailing 
out of the port of Boston. It is a tremendous increase, figuring that 
10 vessels produce 33,000,000 pounds. 

Now, that is a very delicate, perishable article of food, and we 
simply can't reach distant points with it. It has got to be cured or 
otherwise taken care of before we can go much beyond the Missis- 
sippi Valley, and they will use very limited quantities. The southern 
fisheries, as you all know, have been practically destroyed for want 
of men and equipment. The past ^''ear or so Gloucester has sold out 



156 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

its fleet because they couldn't man them successfully. It was not 
profitable for them to man their vessels, and therefore, as I under- 
stand it, they have sold some 120 vessels within a short period that 
might be producing fish to-day. And from an investment standpoint 
we certainly have got to be more or less careful that we don't over- 
produce and cause these vessels to fish without gain. We must have 
an independent production ; there is no question about that ; and an 
overproduction at a price that they couldn't fish successfully at 
would be the worst thing that could happen to the industry. It cer- 
tainly would not attract capital to the extent of the construction of 
22 new trawlers. The business has got to be made attractive for 
people to invest their monej^ in it. The vessels that are being built 
to-day are costing approximately $150,000 to build. 

Secretary Eedfield. Before you leave, Mr. Burns, there is one 
thing I want to ask. You can reach with fresh fish as far as the 
Mississippi River? 

Mr. Burns. In limited quantities. 

Secretary Eedfield. And how far south? 

Mr. Burns. We have gone as far as Xew Orleans this past winter, 
but very unsuccessfully. The fish are now in cold storage in Xew 
Orleans and in one or t^vo other States in the South. The fish that 
we shipped in the green state did not meet with mij satisfaction. 

Secretary Eedfield. Now, this seems to be, then, the fact : That 
Great Britain uses in normal times, with a population of about 
45,000,000, 4,000,000,000 pounds of fish purchased on the fresh fish 
basis. We use, with a population of 100.000,000, rather less than 
half that amount— 2,000,000.000 pounds of fish. Now. in this area 
that you can reach b}^ your own statement, you have seven-tenths of 
the entire population of the United States. You have 70,000,000 
of people. Consequently, it would seem possible to increase the 
sale if we have the goods to sell veiT largely before we reach any- 
thing like the proportions that Great Britain uses. Great Britain, 
with" 45,000,000 people, uses 4,000,000.000 pounds : in the area you 
can reach you have 70,000,000 people, and yet in the whole country 
w^e use but 2,000,000,000 pounds. It would seem as if. should we 
reach the same level of consumption that Great Britain reaches — 
I don't know that we can — if we did, however, you would have 
three times, within the territory you speak of. the sale of fish that 
now exists in the whole United States. Now, why is it not feasible 
to make some marked attempt in that direction? Oh. Mr. Burns, 
your 29 vessels, and 29 more, and a third 29 more, would be swamped 
out of sight by the demand of 70,000,000 of people if the demand 
among those 70,000,000 rose to half that which it is per capita in 
Great Britain. And you would have to count as Grimsby counts 
trawders — not by the dozen, but by the hundred — in order to meet 
that demand. That is what seems to me to be the sober truth : now, 
if it is not the truth I want to know it. 

Now, isn't this also the truth? That a fresh fish store, adequately 
equipped and given six days in the week for the sale of fresh fish and 
sea food generally, is most uncommon beyond the Allegheny Momi- 
tains. How many of us know of the existence of one? Now, I am 
in the center of the fishing industry of the country and I am speak- 
ing to experts in this line. How many of you know of the existence 
of such a store? There mav be many, but I never saw any. How 



AMERICAN-CAlirADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 157 

many know of the existence of a fresh fish store, adequately 
equipped with storage facilities, anywhere west of Pittsburgh? Isn't 
it a fact, or is it a fact, that the fish business is done on Friday 
morning by the butcher? Isn't that the fact throughout that west- 
ern country ? It may not be so, but I ask for information. Isn't it 
feasible to put in the mouths of the miners of Pittsburgh the same 
kind of fish food that they Avere accustom.ed to eat before they left 
Europe? It is not done. Isn't it feasible to do it? Now, these are 
questions which affect the Department of Commerce. I am ready 
to get in and help to do those things, and put men on the road to 
meet that situation. 

STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE C. FITZPATRICK, OF BOSTON. 

Mr. FiTZPATRicK. I would like to ask you a few questions in re- 
gard to your statement. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. I am not making statements; I am asking- 
questions. 

Mr. FiTZPATKiCK. I would like to ask, in view of the fact that this 
statement has been made, two or three things. What are those 29 
traAvlers going to do in the meantime? What does the bureau 
stand ready to do? Are they ready to lun a train of refrigerator 
cars doATn on the pier 

Secretary Redfield. One at a time. Will you have them answered ? 

Mr. FiTZPATRicK. For instance, when 10 big trawlers come in, 
would it be possible to have a train of refrigerator cars come doAvn on 
the Avharf ? 

Secretary Redfield. I told Mr. Burns last night that if he would 
agree — that if this thing were taken up on a large scale I would 
personally go to the Director of Railroads and do my best with him, 
and I thought I could say trains would be put in position to run from 
Boston to Chicago as Avere needed. But I can't do it unless I am go- 
ing to be assurecl that the traffic is to be obtained. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. For instance, here is the men that enter into the 
consideration for the working out of that problem. If those vessels 
bring in that fish, and it is not used on the profitable days, these men 
can't get compensated. Would the authorities at Washington stand 
ready to advocate a pension to the fishermen that have fished for 25, 
30, or 35 years, so that they Avould feel that at a certain time in their 
life they Avould be provided for, the men that take the chances? 
I put ill a good deal of time at the fish pier, and I observe things 
Avhere improvements could be made. But the conditions surround- 
ing the fishing industry — the men engaged in the business have not 
had the opportunity. 'They are there from daylight until dark at 
night trying to economize, and the business has been carried on 
for 25, 30, or 35 years, and I never heard of a man retiring yet 
Avith a dollar, hardly, from the business. Plug day after day. Now, 
you want to have "those fishermen go out and give their youth, 
vitality, intelligence — such as it is — and then Avhen they get to be 
45, 50,' or 55 years old they are thrown into the scrap. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Fitzpatrick, pardon me. Mr. PoAA^ell, 
of the Boston Lobster Co., has very kindly come and has Avaited 
some minutes, and I feel it is my duty to let him speak now. I will 
say that I Avas not making any suggestion of throAving anybody into 
the scrap. All that is being done is, as business men, to see if there 



158 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 



is a business opportunity, and if so, we are ready to spend the Gov- 
3rninent's money in helping to develop it. That is all. Is Mr. 



ei 

Powell in the room? 



STATEMENT BY MR. AVERY L. POWELL, PRESIDENT OF THE 
BOSTON LOBSTER CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Powell, we are interested to inquire what 
your experience has been in fishing for lobsters olf the Nova Scotia 
coast with the well smacks. Did you have a number of smacks run- 
ning down there last year? 

Mr. Powell, No, sir; we did not. I had one four years ago — 
three or four years ago — and I took her oif. Last year I didn't send 
her. In fact, I don't have any intention of sending her any more. 

Secretary Kedi'Miolo. AVhy not'^ 

Mr. PowKLL. Well, there is nothing in it. The lishernien couldn't 
make money enough to make it pay. 

Secretary Kedfikld. AVhy Avas that, Mr. Powell? 

Mr. Powell. Well, it took too long for a trip, and the lobsters 
they caught were undesirable — the}'' were large; they were either 
large or small, and not ver^^ desirable to handle — and they were so 
long on the trip a lot of them died, and linally we gave it up. And, 
in fact, my smack was lost, anyway, last year. I took her off before 
she was lost, anyway. 

Secretary Ivedfii^ld. To what extent has that business been done, to 
your knowledge, Mr. Powell? 

Mr. PoAVELL. Well, it has been for three or four years. 

Secretary Kedi'ield. IIoav many vessels have been engaged in it? 

Mr. PoAVELL. Well, I Ihink the first year there Avere three or four. 
Three. And the next year I think there Avere four, and then three. 
I think last year that Mr. Cox Avas the only one that had a smack 
doAvn there, as far as I knoAV. 

Secretary Ivkdeikld, You regard it as a dead industry? 

Mr. l*owKLL. It is. I don't think anyone Avould care to go doAvn 
there for lobsters. 

Secretary 1vedetei,d, Mr. PoAvell, Avonld you favor a laAv Avhich 
Avould prohibit the entrance into any American port of fish caught 
contrary to the Uxav of any State or country, and Avhich Avould further 
prohibit the moNcment of those lobsters thus unlaAvfully caught in 
interstate commerce? 

Mv. PoAVKiiii. AVhy, yes; T think I Avould. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Kedfielu. Do you think that such a Federal laAv is nec- 
essary to the protection of the industry? 

Mr. PoAVELL. I think that there should be a Federal hiAv or some 
uniform laAv betAveen all the States so that there avouUI be no infring- 
ing on any of the States. 

Secretary REOFiELn. I am very nuich obliged to you, Mv. PoAvell. 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. J. O'HARE, FISH MERCHANT. 

Mr. O'Hake. My business is to represent all the fresh-fish business 
in Boston, and my experience has been for 55 years catching and sell- 
ing fish. 1 think that the sooner avc open the doors Avide oi)en to all 
countries the better for the United States. I believe that the Presi- 
dent's declaration for a democratic Avorld is the right thing — not 1 
corporation or 10 corporations or 50 corporations. Let the people 



AMEKICAN-CAISrADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 159 

get out and rule all the countries. That is what it is coming to, in 
my opinion; and the sooner it gets to that the better. I remember 
when we had free trade with Canada before on herring and other 
fish. We were buying stock in there then for less than they could buy 
it. You ask me why — why it was ? We put down cash there to pay 
for the goods, and we sent our vessels in there and we bought herring 
anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents a barrel less than the people down 
there could buy it, for the reason that we went down with cash and 
we paid the fishermen cash. Down there they w^ere taking the fish 
and putting it on the books and paying them in food. 

Now, I have been in favor of free trade, gentlemen, ever since I 
went fishing at IG. I went into the United States Navy very shortly 
after the Civil War, and I have been in every country of the world 
except India. I have been in Melbourne, and have made some in- 
quiries there about the fishing industry there, and I found there that 
they have prohibitory taxes on their books which stop any American 
vessel or American corporation going there. I found out they prob- 
ably would give me a permit for one or two years, not longer than 
that, but after that they charged me 30 per cent. I said, " That is 
prohibitive." They wanted a fishing industry there. One company 
went from London there, and one went from Scotland, and each one 
failed for the reason that thej'^ couldn't do the business there. But 
they are singing out all the time about fish — fish being so high. 
They can't get fish. They have been trying to get them. The Gov- 
ernment over there has spent over $500,000,000 or more. They found 
the banks and the fish, but couldn't get any company to go there and 
do the fishing. You spoke about rabbits a while ago. There they 
destroy the rabbits all they can. Every day probably there are 50 
rabbits destroyed in the city of Melbourne. I have been there and 
know all about it. 

Secretary Eedfield. I am afraid that I erred, Mr. O'TIare, in in- 
troducing the subject of rabbits. 

Mr. O'Hare. You spoke about increasing them here ; they are very 
good food ; they are all right. You can live cheap down there on 
rabbits. And there are some very good lambs down there — the best 
I ever ate. The beef wasn't so good. And talking about this coun- 
try, Mr. Burns makes the statement about 29 trawlers. In Grimsby 
I think there are over 150, I have been in all of those countries. I 
am the youngest man here, but the oldest in experience. I am only 
70, but expect to live some years yet. I hope you will look at this in 
a broad spirit, not in a mean spirit. This country has grown large 
enough in my time to go out and defend itself against any country 
in all business propositions of any kind. And I am much surprised 
that the young men here should get up and talk about the difficulties 
of this thing and that thing. I went fishing 15 years, and I will defy 
anybody to put me down. And I am selling fish 37 years or more. 
And I am not all in yet. 

And yet there were some of the men when I started in business — 
there were then about 15 dealers, and some loved me so much they 
wouldn't sell me any goods unless they charged me 2 cents a pound 
extra. And tAvo or three years afterwards they were glad to call 
me off. And I am just the same to-day as I was then. I am not 
afraid to fight everybody and everything. I believe the sooner we 
throw down the bars and open the doors and do business with the 
world the better it will be for us. 



IGO AMKIMClAN-CANADIAN KISI I Kl{l KS (U)N KKKKNOE. 

S('ci'('(;ii'y Kiu)I''i1';m). I think we nwc Mr. liiii'iis nn !i|)()l()i>"y lor 
li:i\'m<4" iril('rni|)((M| him. 

Ml'. Hi'itN's. Since i iuu inti'rruplcd, I will slop ri<i,hl here. 

iMr. M. A. Ni( KKitsoN (of iho Boston Lobster Co.)- May 1 he 
iillowed (o nntlce a new and very eai-eliilly consideretl statement'^ 

Soei'elai-y I\Kni'ii',i,n. \Vait just a minute, ])lease. I will ask Con- 
gressiuan Lul'lcin, who is here, to speak (o us, if he desii'es to do so. 
I do not wish to l)e understood, from what I said, as urging any 
sudden, rash oi' innnediatc* overthi'ow of any existing business, or 
any attempt for somebody or anybody that wants (o luiild a great 
shipyard and go wvy largely into innnediale eonstruelion. Nothing 
so rash and radical as all that. Least of all, to b^' understood as 
implying any criticisii; itot in th(> least. l>ut simply IJiis: To oU'er 
a suggestion for what it may be worth. It may l)e worthless; let 
it be so shown. That is llu> way we learn. But merely to oti'er a 
suggestion as to what seems a ])Ossibility, and a ])ossibility more or 
less eonfirmed by the (^xpei'ls, the genllemen who are here. We are 
here, not to urge any cause, not to promote any pi'opaganda, W(> are 
here to .study a subject in all its phases, little and large, and to listen 
and to think and to l(>arn. I do not know whethei- there are (luite 
as many \(\ssels sold from (iloueester as Mr. l>urns speaks of. We 
ha\e the recoi'd of all the sales and they show from (iloueester, each 
yv.w singularly tMiough, II ships for ih(> last fo.ur years. That is 
all. And the total number of Aessels sold of all kinds is not quite as 
large as Mr. Burns fears. Does (\)ngressman Lufkin care to say a 
woi'd? 

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LUFKIN. OF 

ESSEX, MASS. 

Ml'. Li I'KiN. Mr. SiH'retai'y and ConunissioncM's: 1 \\:\\o come on 
here from ^^^^shinglon to recei\e infoi'uiation rather than to gi\e it. 
I suppose that whateNer your eonnnission reconniiends will re(|uire 
legislation by the Canadian rai'lianient and by the American Con- 
gress, and 1 wanted to hear wind the eonnnission had to offer; and 
also which is rathei' important with men holding eUn'tive posi- 
tions — what my t'oustit uents have to oll'er. So that I think for to- 
day T will simply sit still and listen, and 1 undiMstand you are going 
to (iloueester to-nun'row and I shall probably listen a great deal 
lluM'e also, and perhaps with a kiHMUM' ear. 

S(H'retary Kkdimkm). State Senator r>row ii is lu>re. and if h(> d(>- 
sii'(>s 

.V \'(M('i';. 1 le has i>(»n(>. 

Secretary Hkdkikm). I am sorry not to ha\i' gi\(M> him an oppor- 
tunity earlier, but 1 think he will be with us to-morrow at (Gloucester. 

(^hief Justict^ IIazkn. Yin\ sjjolve about being in the lish curing 
business and distributing business, Mr. ))'onson. T^o yon export any 
cur(Ml (ish to points outside the United States^ 

Mr. A)'oNsoN. Not diivctly, but some others exi)ort cured lish to 
South and Central America — Porto Kii-o. 

Chief flnstice IIa/.kn. Ts that any consideral)le portion of your 
business'^ 

Mr. A^^)^isoN. (^iiite t-onsiderable, partictdarly this year. 

SecuMarv Kkdkiklu. AVhal is the stvle of vour business? 

;Mi'. AVonson. The (^doncester Salt Fish Co. 



ameeican-canadiajST fisheeies conference. 161 

Chief Justice Hazen. What are tlie fish you export, chiefly? 
Alewives ? 

Mr. WoNsoN. Oh, no, sir; dry fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. But don't you cure alewives and sell them? 

Mr, WoNSON. Yes, sir. We do not get alewives in Gloucester. 
They come from the surrounding districts in the rivers and are 
handled and put up and sold for export through New York exporting 
companies. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What are the fish that are exported from 
Gloucester down to the West Indies and South America ? 

Mr. Won SON. Haddock, pollock; more or less codfish; but the 
larger proportion is what we call the scale fish — the haddock and 
hake and pollock. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Would there be any demand for that class 
of ground fish in the American market ? 

Mr. WoNSON. Yes, sir; differently cured. 

Mr. Sweet. It might interest some of us, Mr. Wonson, to know 
what kind of fish you introduced to your banker friend. 

Mr. WoNSON. The very best codfish. No; I will tell you about 
that. It was not. I will tell you a little story about that if you will 
listen for a minute. The first lot that he bought was a slack salt cod- 
fish. It is rather a tough-fiber fish, but a very excellent flavored fish, 
and anyone who has ever eaten one, if he can procure one of those 
again that is properly cured, he will prefer it to anything else. But 
the kind of fish that he s]Doke of so highly was the Georges codfish, 
which to-day means a high-grade codfish. 

Secretar}^ Bedfield. The conference Avill now adjourn, to meet at 
2.30 at this place. 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The conference was resumed at 2.30 p. m.. Chairman Kedfield pre- 
siding. 

STATEMENT BY MR. W. MUNROE HILL, REPRESENTING THE 
SHATTUCK & JONES CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Hill, will you be kind enough to give 
your full name and address? 

Mr. Hill. W. Munroe Hill, of Shattuck & Jones, Faneuil Hall 
Market, fish business. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your specialty? 

Mr. Hill. We are distributors of fish to Avhat we call wholesale 
consumers — institutions, clubs, and hotels, and families. 

Secretary Redfield. Fresh fish? 

Mr. Hill. Fresh fish; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. How far do your operations extend, geo- 
graphically ? 

Mr. Hill. Our farthest shipment to-day is Denver. We ship fresh 
fish to Denver. 

Secretary Redfield. Is that a regular matter with you? 
51950—18 11 



162 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ' 

Mr. Hill. We have a standing order for two shipments a week — 
less than 100 pounds each shipment — perhaps 50 or 60 pounds each 
shipment. 

Secretary Eedfield. And southAvard? How far do you reach 
there? 

Mr. Hill. AVe do not reach verj^ far south ; no, sir. We send some 
sah fish, though, into Georgia to the winter resorts. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is the tendency of the market toward an in- 
creasing demand for fish food, Mr. Hill ? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; very much so. 

Secretary Eedfield. What general statement can 3^011 give the com- 
mission that will indicate the drift of the business? 

Mr. Hill. Why, I should think — speaking roughly — that our de- 
mand was perhaps 50 per cent increased. 

Secretary Eedfield. In ho\A' long has that growth taken place? 

Mr. Hill. Well, that particular percentage since the meatless day. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is it your judgment that the growth of the 
consumption of fish is of a permanent character? 

Mr. Hill. In my opinion it is: yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has there been any indication, to your knowl- 
edge, of any tendency to abandon the use of fish food after adopt- 
ing it ? 

Mr. Hill. No, sir. I feel that the education that they receive in 
the use of fish an extra clay, and in using more of it, that they will 
keep using it. they will know more about it than they have before 
and see the value of it. 

Secretar}^ Eedfield. Well, as you operate your business, are you 
proceeding on the basis of a probable increase in the demand ? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do you have any difficulty in obtaining a 
supply ? 

Mr. Hill. Well, just noAv, of course, is our rough weather. That 
is the only handicap that we have. 

Secretary Eedfield. Are you familiar, from personal knowledge, 
with the consumption of fish in Great Britain, Mr. Hill ? 

Mr. Hill. Well, only in a general way — that I have read that they 
use a great deal of it there. 

Secretar}^ Eedfield. Do you know why they do? 

Mr. Hillu Well, in my opinion, I suppose that possibly it was 
fairly easy for them to get it, and the}^ have been educated in a way 
to know the value of it ; that is, educated to like it and know about it. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has your attention ever been called to the 
organization of the fish business in Great Britain ? 

Mr. Hill. It has not ; no, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do your know whether it is organized on a 
national basis or not ? 

Mr. Hill. I do not know, sir. 
■ Secretary Eedfield. Is it your judgment — can you inform the 
commission whether, if the fish business in this country were pro- 
vided with an assurance of regular supply and ample and regular 
transportation, that a considerable increase in the volume of business 
is possible? 

Mr. Hill. I think so ; j^es. air. 



AMERICAN'-CAITADIAl^ FISHERIES COIsTFEEENCE. 163 

Secretary Redfield. Is the matter of regular transportation vital 
to the business? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. At present are you embarrassed by transpoi^ 
tation? 

Mr. Hill. We are having a little trouble on western shipments; 
yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Are you taking steps to increase your business 
in the interior ? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. We have even sent a man out there. 

Secretary Eedfield. Sent a traveling man ? 

Mr. Hill. Yes. And we within a year have had one or two 
brokers — something we have not done before — in large cities. 

Secretary Eedfield. Interior cities? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. 

Secretaiy Eedfield. Such as, for example? 

Mr. Hill. Cleveland. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have 3^011 undertaken any educational lines 
of work? 

Mr. Hill. I have lectured before colleges on the different ways of 
preparing fish. That is, not cooking it, but dressing it; showing 
the shrinkage that there was in dressing, and the seasons of the 
year that the fish are more plenty and in the best condition. And 
I have clone that once or twice with colleges; they have requested 
me to do it. I personally feel there is quite a field for that sort of 
work, in the waj^ of educating people as to how to handle fish, and 
the time of the year that certain kinds of fish are better than others. 

Secretary Eedfield. What college in Boston? 

Mr. Hill. Simons College. 

Secretary Eedfield. And where else? 

Mr. Hill. I am going to lecture next Friday at the Garland 
School on Chestnut Street, in Boston. 

Secretary Eedfield. Then do you regard work of that character — 
among the women's colleges, I take it, you mean? 

Mr. Hill. That is all I have done so far ; yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do you regard work of that character as 
promising from a business standpoint? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir ; I_ think it is very beneficial. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do you think that propaganda of that char- 
acter, conducted in connection with the schools of domestic econom}^ 
throughout the country, would be fruitful ? 

Mr. Hill. I do, sir; yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. I would like to ask Dr. Smith of the commis- 
sion if, in connection with the work of the Fisheries Service, there 
has been a spirit of cooperation shown by the teachers in household 
economics ? 

INIr. Smith. Some of the most effective work we have clone in 
putting before the consuming public these new and neglected fishery 
products has come from the schools of domestic science of Cornell 
University, the University of Illinois, and various other institutions 
of that kind. The women have rendered invaluable aid in that work. 

Secretary Eedfield. So far as your knowledge goes, Mr. Hill, 
do you know whether the large interior centers of the country are 



164 AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

properly equipped for the handliiii^ of fresh fish on a considerable 
scale? 

Mr. Hill. Well, my opinion would be that they are not properly 
equipped to handle it, as you say, on a large scale; but I think — 
you are speaking on this matter of education — I think they would 
take it up very readily if they felt that they could get their supply 
somewhere nearly regular and uniform; for instance, if they were 
planning to have fish on Friday, that the}'' could feel that the goods 
would arrive at least a day or two beforehand, so that they could 
plan to have them. 

Secretary Redfield. So that, if I understand you correctly, the 
certainty of the supply and of the transportation of the supply are 
two necessary elements to that ver}^ large development? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. 

Secretai'y Redfield. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Hill. 
Is there anybody else who would like to ask Mr. Hill a question? 
[No response.] Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Hill; it is very 
kind of you to come. 

STATEMENT BY MR. GARDNER POOLE, PRESIDENT COMMON- 
WEALTH ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your business, Mr. Poole? 

Mr. Poole. President of the Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage 
Co., in connection with the handling of frozen fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, your business is very largel}'^, if 
not almost Avhollv, in connection with freezing fish and the storage 
offish? 

Mr. Poole. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield Are you connected with the Food Adminis- 
tration in any way, Mr. Poole? 

Mr. Poole. I have been since August of last year representing 
Mr. Fowler, who is Mr. Hoover's assistant in the fish division of the 
Food Administration. I have represented him wholly on the fish, 
representing this New England district. I have been called on sev- 
eral occasions to Washington on conferences. 

Secretary Redfiiold. Are you able to say whether there has been 
a gradual increased demand for fish food within recent months? 

Mr. PooLE. Yes; a very material increase in demand. 

Secretary Redfield. Can you give us any idea as to what the in- 
crease has been ? 

Mr. PooLE. In this district, the State of Massachusetts, Ave learn 
from our local food administrator — I believe those figures were com- 
piled by his department — the hotels during the month of Novem- 
ber, taken as an example, were able to conserve 3,000,000 pounds of 
beef in this section, substituting to a large extent fish. The hotel 
men report that their increase in the consumption of fish during that 
period was about 50 per cent over the previous year. I do not be- 
lieve those figures will bear out for the entire district in the matter 
of consumption and distribution, because, unfortunateiy, we have 
had a very severe winter, and with the shortage of fish, generally, 
speaking— fresh fish in this section — we have been unable to supply 
the demands. HoAvever, we have had, fortunately, a fairly large 
supply of frozen fish. Those fish have been practically 80 per cent 



AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN" FISHERIES CO^STFERENCE. 165 

distributed and have filled in the gap during this period of extreme 
scarcity of fresh fish. In Boston we freeze as public-warehouse 
men. That is to say, the company with which I am identified do no 
merchandising. We depend upon the disposition, the ability, of the 
men on the pier to freeze certain products during the producing sea- 
son. This year we have frozen — handled frozen — about 18,000,000 
pounds, in our plant, of fish; about 10,000,000 pounds of that fish 
have been shipped over seas for the British Government and for, I 
believe, the allies. Some of that has gone into England, and a large 
amount into France. 

About five millions of that was sent over the line from Canada and 
mobilized in Boston to take advantage of our refrigeration space, 
sailing from here from time to time; the balance has been frozen 
here in this market on a contract which was placed here by a Cana- 
dian company who held a contract with the British Board of Trade, 
leaving 8.000,000 pounds which we have handled for domestic con- 
sumption. I think most of the freezers in Massachusetts — I might 
say New England — are operated on an entirely different basis from 
ours. On Cape Cod, for instance, the freezers are owned and op- 
erated by merchandising companies. They have frozen on Cape 
Cod this year in the vicinity of 12,000,000 pounds of whiting. I 
think this is the largest amount of fish frozen in this section of 
the United States. Strange to relate, only less than 100,000 pounds 
of these fish will be sold and distributed in the New England sec- 
tion during this year. The^^ are shipped entirely to the West and 
South. You can imagine, with our increased transportation difficul- 
ties, it has been some job to get these fish off the cape. I think at 
the present time perhaps three-fifths of them have been moved. It 
is very necessary to get these fish into the market during the con- 
suming season, as it is to get all of our frozen fish disposed of during 
the consuming season. It is no advantage to carry fish over the 
12 months' period, as we have the 12 months' cold-storage law in this 
State. I believe we should have a Federal cold-storage law covering 
this matter. On Cape Cod this whiting business has developed in 
a very few years. It is a kind of fish known very little of or eaten 
very little. The nature of it is soft. It is not shipped in the fresh 
state. However, I believe that whiting, being frozen early from the 
water, direct out of the traps on Cape Cod, are perhaps as fresh as 
anj' other variety that can be put upon the table of the consumer in 
this country. Yet through lack of education, perhaps, our own peo- 
ple do not eat it here in New England. 

We have started a campaign recently, due to the effort of our local 
food administrator, in an attempt to bring this to the attention of 
our own people and educate them to eat it, principally because other 
varieties in the fresh-fish market have been so high that it was feared 
there was a class of people perhaps who w^ere not able to get fi.sh at 
times. We have visited some of our large industrial centers, some 
of us, and took whiting, and we have interested families, commit- 
tees — committees on public safetj^ — and so forth, to the extent that 
they have helped in advertising whiting, bringing it before the peo- 
ple; and during the last month a considerable increase in demand 
in New England has been noted from those centers, only illustrating 
that very little effort in the educational line will move these varieties. 
We have found also that people perhaps are more apt to complain 



166 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

about high pi'ices of fish. In sifting clown theii- conii)hiints we find 
that they have been in the habit of demanding a hixury variety of 
fish — halibut, salmon, sea bass, and so forth. In nearly every case — 
I will say 90 per cent of the cases — I have investigated for our food 
administrator it has been shown conclusively that the peo]:)le are not 
educated in the use of or in the eating of the cheaper varieties. Pol- 
lock is not used very largely in this section; it is shij^ped largel.y to 
the South, to the Philadelphia market, to New York, and beyond. 
There is very little hake used here. People are not educated in these 
varieties. However, those people that do know of pollock sometimes 
Avon't eat it because they have a prejudice against it. They have 
heard something about it. I have an instance in" mind I can cite of a 
local market during the season that pollock is very plentiful, putting 
on a special on a certain clay and advertising pollock at very cheap 
prices. I think it Avas 4 or 5 cents a pound, possibly G cents. They 
were unable to sell an}^ The next day they tagged it up as Boston 
bluefish and charged 12 cents for it, and they cleaned it out almost 
immediately. Now, we have made an attempt through our local food 
administration to educate the people in the use of these cheaper varie- 
ties. We have had a great many criticisms — have had criticisms 
through some of our neAvspapers for our high prices. That again 
was due to lack of education. We are perfectly Avilling at all times 
to take the newspaper men under our wing, take them on the fish pier 
and give them a feed of the various varieties of fish and educate them. 

Secretary Redfield (addressing ncAvspaper men). You had better 
go, gentlemen. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We have been there and can recommend it. 

Mr. Poole. There is a great field for this line of Avork. I am myself 
particularly interested in it and have done a considerable amount of 
it, not only for our local food administrator, but for the United 
States Food Administration. HoAvever, I belieA^e that Ave are going 
to solve the ])roblem some time through the larger use of frozen fish. 
We Avere speaking this morning of the limited area over Avhich we 
can transport fresh fish with safety and keep it fresh under ice. 
That is very true. In these times it is very trying in shi])ping car- 
loads, perhaps, of fresh fish, or barrels oi- boxes of fresh fish in this 
section, even to nearby points. We are getting very serious delays. 
We are getting embargoes from time to time of necessity. We are 
even having our Fall River line, operating to New York, at times 
discontinuecl, AAdiich is a severe handicap to the fresh-fish question 
of Boston. We are having embargoes to Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
and Washington points, making it almost impossible at times to 
reach these sections Avith fresh fish. During these times it Avould 
take very little of an increased production and oversupply to make 
it very difficult to move in a given period the supply of fish that 
might arrive here in the summer months during our periods of 
plenty. Mackerel, for instance. Of course, during those times the 
men resort to the freezers. And it is Avell that they do. They put 
aAvay through the i)roducing season. I knoAV this particular year it 
has been most fortunate that Ave have had the supply of frozen fish. 
We have had agitation in this State; Ave have had a great deal of 
adverse criticism from various sources. In one particular case — I 
think there Avere several — some of the newspapers advocated throw- 
ing open the doors of the cold-storage plants and dumping this 



AMERICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, 167 

frozen fish out for the people. It is very apparent what would hap- 
pen if we did that. It is very apparent what would happen if we 
attempted to move this tremendous quantitv of fish during the pro- 
ducing season through fresh-fish channels. It would be impossible. 
If we were not fortified with this tremendous stock which we carry 
in the wintertime all varieties of fish foods would be in the luxury 
class. We have seen days — we have seen three days running this 
very Avinter when we have not had one arrival on the fish pier. Dur- 
ing those times our dealers have resorted to their stocks of frozen 
fish. Now, I believe the time is coming, and I know Dr. Smith will 
tell you of the work Dr. Pennington is doing along those lines, advo- 
cating the more general use of this means of handling fish, and espe- 
cially under the circumstances of the embargo handling frozen fish 
shipped in refrigerator cars. Frozen fish shipped in refrigerator 
cars Avill stand up at this season of the year for a great length of 
time; it can not be injured because it is packed in boxes and packed 
in refrigerator cars where the temperature is held at a very even 
point. It would be impossible to ship those fish and distribute them 
through these various centers throughout the United States — an un- 
limited area. Of course, that is being done largely on the Pacific 
coast Avith halibut and salmon. A great deal of that product comes 
from the East. I have been identified Avith the halibut industry for 
a great many years, having spent some eight years on the Pacific coast 
in that industry. During those years, in the early j^ears of my ex- 
perience, very little halibut Avas sold in the interior of the country, 
Chicago possibly would handle tAvo cars a week, and at times with 
difficulty. To-day Chicago is a distributing center for a tremendous 
amount of halibut, being shipped in from Canadian points — Prince 
Eupert — and from points in our OAvn country. They distribute that 
fish through the entire section of the Middle West. We haA^e heard 
at times that it Avould be impossible to distribute this fish in the 
summer, CA^en in cold-storage cars! I must confess I Avas of the 
opinion that it was not practicable. 

HoweA^er, this year has demonstrated that that can be done to a 
large extent, because of all this 5,000,000 pounds Avhich has been 
shipped in here from Canadian points, 90 per cent of it came through 
during the very hot weather of this past summer. I believe the 
development of this business will produce a better refrigerator car 
than that Avhich Ave have available for fish service to-day. I think 
it is a matter that Ave could well apply ourselves to in connection 
Avith your department. I believe Ave are not offered proper facilities 
at present for the movement of this product. I believe the frozen- 
fish business is going to groAv, and I believe it is going to solve a 
great many of our problems in the distribution of fish. Boston is a 
large distributing center for both fresh and frozen fish of the 
various ground fish varieties; Cape Cod is a freezing point for AAdiit- 
ing and mackerel. The State of Maine produces and freezes a large 
amount of herring. Boston produces a great deal of herring, but 
some years there is very little of it frozen. We have had some diffi- 
culty through State legislation restrictions Avhich made it impossible 
for some fishermen to supply our vessels with a supply of bait. 
Those restrictions noAv have largelj^ been removed through the efforts 
of the food administrator in this section, setting an example for 
our Avhole Atlantic coast section. Some of our States have restrictiA?e 



168 AMERTOAN-OANADIAN KISl 1 i:i{| i:S t'ONKKKKNCK. 

laws on tlicir books whit'h inako \i impossiblo to produce certain 
varieties of tish dtirinii' the })eiMoil of most plenty. However, that 
situation I am not familiar with. TTnder the circumstances of this 
present period it is necessary that we have the restrictions removed, 
and they have been removed. I don't know that I can add anything 
further, Mr. Secretary. T will be very glad to answer any questions. 
Secretary IIkhfieu). Mr. Poole, what would be the effect u]^on the 
market in its present condition of diMuand if the supply of fresh lish 
from (\inada were cut oil". 

INIr. l*ooLK. At the [^resent time, couiing into the season yon might 
e\])ect shipments, our market wouUl be shoi'thanded on some varie- 
ties. IIowe\er, I tind if lish are scarce Avith us on account of the 
elements they are scarce with our brothers across the line. 

Secretary Kkokielo. Taking the statement that about 48,000,000 
pounds of lish came hito the United States from Canada on the 
Allantii' coast in the last year, 1 take it we can agree that that fish 
<'anie in because it Avas needed^ 
Mr. l\)OLE. Yes. 

Secretary Ivkdfiki.i). It did not cou\e in for any other reason. 
Suppose that supply of 43,000,000 pounds a year were cut off. ^A^)uld 
the etl'ect be to enhance the price of tish in the American markets? 

Mr. l*ooT.K. T think our ])rice is governed by the law of supply 
and demand; naturally if you shorten the supply or increase the 
demand the price will rise. 

Secretary Kkofiklu. Do you think that the consumption of fish 
in the United States is t'apable of a considerable e\i)ansiou through 
education generally throughout the country? 
Mr. PooLK, 1 do; yes, sir. 

Secretary Ki'M)fteu). Assume for the moment that such education 
takes place and that there i^ no material increase in the supply. 
AVhat. then, in vonr juduinent. would be the etfect \\\Hn\ the price 
of lish i 

Mr. PooLK. I think weie we to increase our demand materially 
above oni- supply, naturally it would place most of our varieties in 
the luxury class. 

Secretary Kkukikij). Uhen is it not the necessary ci)nclusion from 
yonr experience and from Avhat you have told the commission, that 
the process of increasing the consnm])tion by education mnst go 
hand in hand Avith the [)rocess of increasing the supply^ 
Mr. PooLK. Yes. 

Sei-refary PKorvELn. From all sources. 

Mr. Pooi.K. The fish business is a peculiar (me. It is very hard 
to ivgulate either. We can't put our finger on the man that Avants 
to eat fish to-day; Ave don't knoAv — he may Avant to eat it to-day, or 
he nu\y not; he may want to save his appetite until a Aveek from 
to-day. On the other hand, we can't put our finger on our supply 
at any one time, ^^'e here ha\e million-pound days, Ave have days 
Avhen Ave have less than 100,000. It is very uneven. Tt makes it 
very diilicult at times to nu)ve the supply through our regidar chan- 
nels for those reasons. 

Secretary lvEnKua.n. Is it not a fact thai \ouv reser\e of fresh 
Hsh acts as a moderator of that verv condition '. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 169 

Mr. Poole. It does after we educate the people against this preju- 
dice also. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there anything in the fisli business, to 
your knowledge, Mr. Poole, which corresponds to the distributing 
equipment possessed by the meat packers ? 

Mr. Poole. No; I can't say that we have an organization or the 
facilities for distributing fish, either fresh or frozen, that the meat 
packers have. 

Secretary Eedfield. It appears to be the fact — if I am not correct 
in this statement, I will be glad to be corrected — it appears to be the 
fact that when the packing and shipping of fresh fish became a great 
industry, or perhaps I would better say, in order that it might be- 
come a great industry, and at the time when it was sought to make it 
a great industry, the business was found to lack the equipment nec- 
essary for regular and safe transportation of a perishable product, 
and that out of that has grown the familiar refrigerator car which 
everybod}^ sees in every freight yard and the depots throughout the 
counti'v bearing the familiar names of the packers with which we are 
all familiar. Is it not singular that nothing corresponding to that 
system of distribution has taken place with fresh fish or frozen fish? 

Mr. Poole. AVe have one company. I think, operating in the United 
States on similar lines — the Booth Fisheries Co., with headquarters 
in Chicago, and they have some 50 branches throughout the United 
States. I think they have a line of refrigerator cars. I think their 
sj'^stem more nearly equals that of the meat packers. They can do 
that practically, having these branches. Their facilities are correct 
for distribution because of these branches, and they operate in all 
sections of the United States. 

Secretary Redfield. Has that, to your knowledge, resulted in an 
increase in the distribution of fresh fish by those methods ? 

Mr. PooLE. I think it has on fresh- water fish, not on salt. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do they make a specialty of fresh-water fish ? 

Mr. Poole. They do. 

Secretar}^ Eedfield. That has, then, so far as the nature of their 
product goes, resulted in an increase ? 

Mr. Poole. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Are you sufficiently familiar with the general 
frozen-meat industry to be able to say or to express an opinion for 
the commission as to whether, in your judgment, the methods of dis- 
tribution which we have mentioned have been a considerable factor 
in the distribution of fish throughout the country ? 

Mr. Poole. Yes : I think they have. The pi-oduct is very different 
to handle from fish. Fish are shipped imder ice ; beef shipments are 
chilled. There is not the element of danger in transportation. 

Secretary Eedfield. I think I understood you to say — oi- perhaps 
I inferred from what joii said, Mr. Poole — that you thought it possi- 
ble that a better car could be devised for the purpose of handling 
either fresh or frozen fish ? 

Mr. Poole. Yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have any steps been taken toward devising 
an}^ such car? 

Mr. Poole. I think Dr. Pennington has made some suggestion — I 
think Dr. Smith might answer that question. 



170 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Secretary Redfield. Dr. Smith? 

Dr. Smith. There have been experiments along that line, sir, but 
I am not sure they have been given practical effect yet. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to say here that if anybody con- 
nected with the fish interests in Boston desires assistance along the 
line of designing such a car we should be very glad to put at their 
disposal, without expense, skilled refrigerating engineers of the 
Bureau of Standards of our department to conduct any series of ex- 
periments, at Government cost, in order to work out the result that 
might be satisfactory. We are cooperating very closely, as I think 
Mr. Poole probably knows, with the American Society of Refrigerat- 
ing Engineers. Nothing can give us more pleasure than undertaking 
to aid with our scientific staff in the design of an improved car, if 
that is thought necessary. 

Mr. John Burns, Jr. If I may add just a word. As Mr. Poole 
has said. Dr. Pennington has made an exhaustive study of the re- 
frigerator car. She is one of the best fishmen we have in this coun- 
try. She certainly knows all about refrigerator cars. You can 
count them up to 140,000, and when you get to 141.000 she will tell 
you it is of a certain design and will carry stuff with certain effi- 
ciency. 

Secretary Redfield. Where is Dr. Pennington? 

Mr. Burns. The last I heard she was in Pensacola. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Poole, I want to change the subject, if I 
may, for a moment, and ask if you know of any restrictions which are 
imposed upon American cold-storage concerns operating in British 
Columbia or Canada ; and if so, what ? 

Mr. Poole. I don't know of any, and I take it from testimony 
given by Mr. Arnold yesterday that his company, at least, was 
allowed to operate — in fact, I know was operating in Canada and 
Vancouver, freezing and shipping fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact that Mr. Arnold's companies, 
operating as you describe, are Canadian companies? 

Mr. PooLE. He has one Canadian company — ^the Canadian Fishing 
Co., and he also has the New England Fish Co., an American com- 
pany, both in Vancouver. I think that the American compaii}^ is 
operating fi'eezers. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you, yourself, visited the Canadian 
cities of the West, on the Pacific coast? 

Mr. PooLE. I have. 

Secretary Redfield. In connection with the cold-storage business 
in a,nj ^YSiJ ? 

Mr. PooLE. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you familiar with the conditions under 
which the plants there operate ? 

Mr. PooLE. Somewhat. 

Secretary Redfield. I ask these questions, Mr. Poole, to be quite 
candid, because the suggestion has been made to the commission — 
so far as we are able to find, made sincerely, but apparently in 
error — that there were some restrictions, some inequalities, imposed 
by Canadian law upon xVmerican concerns operating cold-storage 
plants in Canadian territory. I want to know very candidly if you 
know of any? 



AMEEICAN-CAN"ADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFEBENCE. 171 

Mr. Poole. I think that might apply, although I am not suffi- 
ciently informed, perhaps, to make a statement. I think that might 
apply to Prince Rupert. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; that is where it is said to apply. What 
do you know about it, Mr. Poole ? 

Mr. Poole. I don't know that I am able to say much on that. I 
know very intimately people operating the cold-storage company at 
Prince Rupert, which is a Canadian concern. I understand they 
have a subsidy. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. Yes : it is subsidized. 

Mr. Poole. I know that the American boats, as was shown here 
yesterday, have been landing their fish, salting their fish, at Prince 
Rupert. 

Secretary Redfield. Do 3^ou know whether there is an American 
cold-storage plant there? 

Mr. Poole. There is not, I believe. I don't know of any. 

Secretary Redfield. I am veiy much obliged to you, Mr. Poole. 
Is Mr. Wheeler of the Booth Fisheries here ? 

A Voice. I think he had to go away this afternoon, Mr. Secretary; 
I heard him say so this noon. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there anybody representing the Booth 
Fisheries here this afternoon? [No response.] Is there anybody 
here who is connected in any ^vay wdiatever with the Lake Fisheries, 
or who is interested in any firm representing the interests ? [No re- 
sponse.] Is there any one here wdio represents the freezing plants 
upon Cape Cod — those connected with them in any way? 

STATEMENT BY MR. IRVING M. ATWOOD, REPRESENTING THE 
CONSOLIDATED WEIR CO. 

Secretary Redfield. What is the name of your business, Mr. 
Atwood ? 

Mr. Atwood. Connected with the Consolidated Weir Co. 

Secretary Redfield. Where is the plant located, Mr. Atwood? 

Mr. Atwood. Our plant is located at Provinceton, and fish at other 
places on the coast. 

Secretary Redfield. And w'hat class of product do you handle? 

Mr. Atwood. Wh}^, mostly the so-called seasonable fish, such as 
the herring or the mackerel and weakfish, and other kinds of what 
we call the seasonable fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you include whiting in that? 

Mr. ATv^"00D. Whiting, yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Where is the whiting sold? 

Mr. Atwood. The largest market for whiting up to two years ago 
Avas through Pennsylvania and a part of New York State, and Mary- 
land. About two years ago, as I remember it, Avhiting was sent 
farther West. Last winter, I understand, that whiting was sold in 
the western part of South Dakota. Then the market gradually has 
broadened. 

Secretary Redfield. How long since that market started? 

Mr. Atwood. We started freezing whiting somewhere about the 
year 1902, which was the first whiting, or practically the first whiting, 
that was frozen. 



17'J AMKHK AX A'.VN APIAX F IS 1 1 KH I KS Tt) \ I'KK K N T K. 

Si\'ivt;irv Kkufikm). )\';is (Iumv nnv mnrkoi in Aiuorirn tl\on, 
i>r did you have to innko oiu> ^ 

Mr. ArAVtH)!). AVo had ti) dovoltip our niarkiM. whirli wo did in oon- 
iUH'>tion witli (.rrtiiin oouuuission houses in (lu- rily o[' Philadol{>lu!i. 
Tho whitiuii- lirst started, as 1 imdorstaud it. through tlio sales aiivnts 
throuiih the nunino' distriets of Pennsylvania, sollinii' it to the \ov- 
eiji'n people there — the LiU\uanians, (he l\)landers. ete. — it lu^ino- n 
lish somewhat similar to those they had been used to. 1 saw some 
AvhitiuiT in Scranton, Pa., in liH^T. 1 ean't say that they looked very 
aj^peti/ino- after iayiuii' out on the stand Avith the etial dust all over 
them, but ihey were all riiiht and retailino- at that time, 1 thiidv, at 5 
I'ents [)er lish. 

Seeivtary pKOFirin. That reminds me o[' a younii' TelUtw that used 
to get Inneh with n\o in NeAV York when 1 was a ilerk at ^\0 a week, 
Avho bouiiht uiaekerel for 10 eents a tish. 

Chief flnstiee Hazrn. What is the weiuhi oi' a whitino-;' 

Mr. ATWoim. Our Avhitino; this year average scnnewhere jiround 14 
onnees, jnst under a pound, althongh we do eateh a small portion of 
onr Avhiting up to a pound and a half. 

Seeretary pKOFrELn. And do I understand yon io say (hal the 
business has steadily grown, ]Mr. Atwood^ 

Mr. A'pwoon. Yes; in the last two years it has grown \ery rapidly. 

Seeretarv Redfiei^d. Until now, I reeall your saying that tho mar- 
ket reaehes as far as North Dakota. 

Mr. .Vtwooo. Yes. 1 don't remember just the eiiy. hut last No- 
vember Or. Peiinington was telling ute about a town, I think in the 
western part of South Dakota, that they had whiting last year. 

Seeretary Eei>fiki.d. .Vnd hoAv far Sonth ^ 

Mr. A'rwooi>. 1 have known of whiting been sent to Den\er and 
Norfolk. I don't knoAv how nuieh farther Sonth and West than that. 

Secretary REnriRLn. And that business has been created in 15 
years in a product which up to that time was hardly used at all? 

Mr. A'rwoon. Yery little used, except in certain local fishing places. 
The total prtnluction of the Cape last year was estimated aroinid 
14.000.000 ]H-»nnds. 

Secretary T\Ei'>Fii<a.P. Now. do you regard it as probable that 
some similar intelligent effort applied to other lishes, given to stand- 
ard tislies, would show a somoAvhat siniilar. though luu'haps not as 
great a result i 

INIr. Atavooix T think m>: yes. sir. 

Secretary REDFiEi.n. AA'hat T want io get at is. whether the thing 
we are talking about this u\oT"ning is a reality or a dream. If tner 
a continuous period intelligence aufl acticm is put upon the education 
of the pci^jde in fish foods generally, do \ on think it would slunv a 
marked inci"ease in the demand • 

Mr. Afwoon. 1 don't belie\e any of u- ■■an rcali/.e what increase 
can be shown. 

Secretary l\EnFiFi.n. AtMu- judgment is, then, that you wouhi hesi- 
tate, as an ex[)erienced man, to put a limit on the increase'' 

Mr. Atwood. T think T should; yes. T know we started in — take 
the situation of pollock, which is very small and has been little 
worked upon. 1 think anybody in the fish market in Poston has seen 
a marked increase in the use and demand for ]>ollock in the la&t tlii^ee 
veal's. 



AMEKICAX-CANADIAX FISIIEPJES COXFEREXCE. 173 

Secretary KEoriELD. How long ago is it, geiitleinen, since the 
flounder was not a very generally sold article of food? 

Mr. Atwood. I think somewhere around 8 or 10 years ago they 
5-tarted using the beam trawl for flounders down off the southern part 
of the Massachusetts coast in the so-called Vineyard Sound, and since 
that time they have de\'eloped, not so much in that territory, but in 
the markets of Xew York particularly, a very large demand, so that 
flounders to-day are bringing prices that a few years ago were un- 
heard of or unthought of. 

Secretary Redfield. Xow, I would like, if I might, to just have 
you hear from Dr. Smith, as bearing upon what you have just said, 
Mr. Atwood. Up to the time of which Mr. Atwood speaks, there 
Avas no established fishery for flounders; it was neglected; and we are 
now planting over 1,000,000,000 a year, and I think I can say that the 
continuance of the industry depends upon that planting. 

Dr. Smith. In the inshore waters of Massachusetts. 

Secretary Redfield. So far as^the inshore waters are concerned. 

jMr. Atavood. I might say, Mr.' Secretary, that I think for a year or 
two prior to that the Italian fishermen commenced fishing for 
flounders for the Boston market with a fair degree of success, about 
12 or 15 3^ears ago the small boat fishermen going out with one or 
two men a few miles off shore. 

Secretarj^ Redfield. It would seem by putting these things to- 
gether — I think it impresses the commission so; if not, they will say 
so — that wherever intelligent activity has been put upon any branch 
of the fisheries business, where brains and character and loiowledge 
haA'e gotten in behind it, even where it had Ijeen totally neglected, 
the result has been rapid and immediate — almost immediate — and 
large. Is that substantially true, Mr. Atwood? 

Mr. Atavood. Yes, sir ; I think it is. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you regard that process as stopped? 

Mr. ArvvooD. No. I have had in our ow'n particular business, I 
might say — the Avholesale business in Boston that I am also con- 
nected with — have used the mails a good deal Avith the retail trade, 
and Ave \in\e really found surprising results as to Avhat Avas possible 
by simply intelligent Aveekly advertising through the mails, once you 
began to push any particular variety of fish. I think it was tAvo or 
three years ago we froze at Provincetown — I don't rememl;)er hoAv 
many, but I should sa}^ around 30,000 or 40,000 of the tuna fish. Most 
of them Avere fish from 50 to 75 pounds each. And we started in 
through the winter, and inside of a comparatiA^ely short space of two 
months sold the Avhole of them through Massachusetts, Xew York 
State, some in XeAv Hampshire and Vermont, to people I doubt ever 
used them before. As evidence of that, one man wrote back, after 
he had his first lot, "Why, they are red; I thought they were cream 
white, judging from the looks of the can from the Pacific coast." 
But we had sufficient repeat orders to show that that adA^ertising 
was successful. I think it was a success in that case. And from our 
experience on a number of other A^arieties little used that we have 
tried, I don't think there is much doubt about the success of the 
proposition. 

Secretary Redfield. Is that tuna fish the one that used to be 
described as the horse mackerel? 



174 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Atavood. They used to call it the horse mackerel. 

Secretary Redfield. 1 can remember being carefully brought up 
to think it was carrion. 

Dr. Smith. Is it not a fact, Mr. AtAvood, that 15 or 20 years ago, 
when these same horse mackerel were running in the traps of Cape 
Cod, those fish were always thrown away? 

Mr. Atwood. "Well. I wouldn't say just exactly the number of 
years — I think perhaps you have a better knowledge of that than I 
do ; but there was a time when they were considered a nuisance and 
the}^ Avere glad to get rid of them in any wscy. And to-day, this last 
year, and even the year before, the price that our^ fishermen have got 
for these same fish compares A^ery favorably Avith most any fish Ave 
catch, simply by freezing them and establishing a market for them. 
Last 3'ear the first tuna fish that came into Boston, if I remember 
rightly, Avas sold at 15 cents a pound to a AAdiolesale jobber in the 
city of Boston. 

Dr. Smith. You perhaps knoAv tjiat the flat rate for the smaller 
fish of the California coast, used in canning, is $80 to $100 per ton 
to the fishermen. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. AtAvood, have you had your attention 
directed to the manufacture of fish Avaste as a food for cattle and for 
poultry ? 

Mr. Atavood. No; I have not, directly. I have spent a A^ery limited 
amount of time on the subject of fish Avaste, but Avith the engineering- 
firms Avith Avhich I have talked, and Avith the amount of Avaste which 
Ave haA^e had at our Pro\dncetoAvn plant — I have not looked into this 
for over a year, but up to that time the engineers told me then they 
did not consider it a feasible plan, and so Ave AAaited until Ave could 
get a larger and more regular amount of Avaste to handle. You see, 
our fishing at Provincetown is very fluctuating. We Avill go for a 
Aveek and perhaps haA^e catches larger than Ave can handle, and then 
we may go for tAvo Aveeks and not have any Avhatevcr. So that on 
that account I never Avent deeply into the question of the manufac- 
ture of fish Avaste for any purpose Avhatever. 

Secretarj^ Redfield. Is there any place along the Atlantic sea- 
board of the United States Avhere the fish Avaste is so manufactured? 

Mr. Atavood. Not that I knoAv of. There are places Avhere it is 
man^ifactured into fertilizer, but not for food for cattle or poultry. 

Mr. George E. Willey. I think doAvn in Maine they are doing it 
to some extent. 

Secretary Redfield. Manufacturing it into fish meal, Mr. Willey? 

Mr. Willey. Into fish meal; yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That is manufactured into cattle food and 
poultry food? 

Mr. Willey. I think so. That has come in the last year or tAvo. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I Avonder if there is any gentleman in the 
room Avho can give us information on that subject. 

Secretary Redfield. I can say that the Director of Markets of 
the State of California, Mr. Weinstock, has recently placed in the 
hands of the Commissioner of Fisheries a letter to him from a prac- 
tical fish operator on the Pacific coast, Avho has for a considerable 
period — I should say, about the time Mr. Willey mentions — been 
making his fish offal and refuse into meal, Avhich he has sold to 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 175 

poultry farms with entire success. He sells all lie can make. And 
the statement, as I recall it, in the letter was that the fish wastes 
of Alaska which could be thus utilized, now wasted, were worth at 
the market price of the meal to-day $8,000,000 per annum. 

STATEMENT BY MR. W. A- REED, SECRETARY GLOITCESTER 
BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Reed. Mr. Secretary, I have experimented with clam meal 
merely for my own information. 

Chief Justice Hazen. ^Vhat has been the result of your experi- 
ment ? 

Mr. Eeed. The matter was called to my attention while in Alaska, 
and merelj^ for curiosity T secured about three or four buckets of the 
large clams and piit them behind the little stove in the shack for 
about three or four weeks and let them dry naturally, and then I 
secured a little coffee roaster which we had in the house and ground 
and ground and ground, and every day when I didn't have anything 
else to do I would grind a bit. I put them in an ordinary Royal bak- 
ing powder tin can without any preparation or without any adding 
anything to them, and I brought them on one trip with me, and 
brought them east with me. T kept that can under observation for a 
year and a half for the purpose of ascertaining if it would pick up 
moisture or decay, or whatever might happen, and approximately 
once in two or three weeks I Avoidd take a pinch of it and taste it. 
I forget what became of it finally, but it never spoiled, never de- 
teriorated so far as I could see. It was excellent flavor, and I be- 
lieve there is a great industry there waiting for somebody to come 
and take it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is that a soft-shell clam? 

Mr. Reed. Xo; harder than a brickbat. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Quahog? 

Mr. Reed. Quahog, rather. If I might add, Mr. Secretary — as I 
looked at the clam flats that are there — there is a virgin territory 
of thousands of square miles of clam flats, and I was invited to come 
up there and get a motorboat and get three or four of the Indians, 
and at low tide get a horse and plow and plow them up and let the 
Indians pick them up. And possibly the doctor may recall Mr. 
Charles Ingersoll. at Ketchikan. 

Dr. Smith. He was formerly in our service. 

Mr. Reed. He was the one that first suggested it to me before I 
tried the experiment. 

STATEMENT BY MR. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE 
BOSTON FISH PIER CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Parker, you have heard the statements 
kindly made by Mr. Atwood and by Mr. Poole. What is your view- 
point respecting the possibility of increasing the demand for fish 
in this country by the continuous and intelligent process of education ? 

Mr. Parker. Well, my opinion is, Mr. Secretary, that we have one 
of the best plants down there in the world, our capacity is unlimited, 
and what we want is fish to sell. A-NHiat little advertising we have 



176 AMERICAN-CANADIAN nSHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

done, we have met with great success. The only reason we have not 
done more is that we have not had the stock to give them. We 
believe that we can take care and distribute all of the fish that will 
come to our dock. 

Secretary Redfield. Do I gather correctly, Mr. Parker, from 
your thought that your plant, then, is not as yet fully used to its 
possible capacity? 

Mr. Parker. Nowhere near it. 

Secretary Eedfield. Then, coining back to my first question : Do 
you think an increased demand upon your facilities could be created 
by an intelligent process of education continued over a time through- 
out the country? 

Mr. Parker. Very much so. 

Secretary Redfield. Do I infer correctly that that would involve 
on the water end an increase of the supply ? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you think of any reason why we should 
not eat as much fish in this country as Great Britain eats per capita ? 

Mr. Parker. Not a bit. If they all ate as much as I do they would 
come up to that quota. 

Secretary Redfield. Think for a moment, Mr. Parker, because 
that woulcl be wholly revolutionary. That would be wholly revolu- 
tionary in the business of this country. 

Chief Justice Hazen. A- revolution sometimes has a good effect. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. There is no question it has a good effect. But 
it would mean so much to the port of Boston in particular, and in- 
cidentally to the sister port of Gloucester, that to say that it could 
be done in time in the process of evolution woulcl mean that all that 
has ever been done in the fisheries of this country would be much 
less than half of what would then be normal. If we ate as much fish 
per capita as Great Britain does, we would be bringing our supply 
of fish food up from 2,000,000,000 pounds a year to something over 
8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 pounds a year. "Yet, I understand, you 
feel that if that were intelligently gotten at it might in time be done. 

Mr. Parker. I think it would come gradually. Any campaign will 
come graduali}^ And if we can only get the stock to give them so 
that we can take care of that increased demand, why, we can take 
and distribute it. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, then, that is just the point. Assuming 
the demand were just as intelligently created — and I gather from 
what you gentlemen have said, it may almost be said to be in process; 
at least, there have been very intelligent, and in each case successful 
stabs at it — now, given that, and be given the transportation facili- 
ties — which I think you. as practical business men would say, must 
follow and has followed in every case where the business has been 
developed — then wiiat Avould remain is the question of an adequate 
supply; is it not? 

Mr. Parker. That has been our question. As you know, at the 
present time it is almost impossible to go out and get tonnage built, 
which we are trying to do to-day. We are doing everj'thing possible, 
and we are building, as has been said before, and building at war 
prices. But that is our aim and belief — that the business has just 
begun to develop. One reason for that, when I have heard the ques- 
tions that you have asked some of these men, is, why haven't these 



AMEBIC AX-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEISrCE. 177 

things been done? I think one of the reasons why it has not been 
done before is that there have been 30 or 40 separate concerns in 
Boston,. no one concern big enough to go out and do the things which 
you have suggested. But there has been a big change within the last 
year, there has been some consolidation, and in that waj a bigger 
and better organization has been created to go out and cater to this 
trade, and I believe we have made a big stride in the business. 

Secretary Eedfield. Suppose we assume, for the sake of a ques- 
tion, that Ave only go half that far, and that we develop our people 
as fish consumers to half the extent that Great Britain has developed 
hers. We should then need, instead of 2,000,000,000 pounds a year 
that we now get, something like four and one-half billion pounds. 
Is there existing floating equipment anywhere on this side of the 
water in sight sufficient to supph^ that demand '( 

Mr. Parker. I don't think there is. 

Secretary Eedfield. It would ]nean, Avould it not, a very large in- 
crease in the equipment of both countries — Canada and the United 
States — and a very large increase in the vrorking force in order to 
meet that demand f Is it not so ? 

Mr. Parker. I think that would be natural. I think with that in- 
creased production we would have to call on Dr. Smith to refurnish 
some of our grounds that we Avould fish from. 

Dr. Sjsiith. I would like to ask Mr. Parker if he thinks the facili- 
ties of Boston, as to the fish pier and as to the general market con- 
ditions, are such as to properly handle the prospective catch of this 
trawling fleet of 29 vessels of which Mr. Burns spoke this morning ? 

Mr. Parker. Why, I think our wharf there could handle 10 times 
the business that is being done there to-day. 

Dr. Smith, And you think you would be able to dispose of that 
greatly increased catch profitably through the usual channels in 
Boston ? 

Mr. Parker. I think so, if it came graduaHy. It must come gradu- 
Sillj. We could take care of that surplus as it arrived. If it should 
come all at once and throw a big surplus onto the market without 
proper foresight to knovi' Avhere 3^011 are going to put it, it might floor 
us. It is natural to suppose that this supplj^has got to come in 
gradually. I think we could take care of it. 

Secretary Eedfield. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Parker. 
Thank you very much. Is Mr. O'Brien, president of the Boston 
Fisli Market Corporation, here? 

A Voice. Pie Avent aAva}^ last night. I would state, Mr. Secretary, 
that Mr. Fulham might speak for the Boston Fish Market Cor- 
poration. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN M. FTJLHAM, REPEESENTING THE 
BOSTON FISH MARKET CORPORATION. 

Secretary Eedfield. A A^ce president of the Boston Fish Market? 

Mr. Fulham. No, sir; just a director. 

Secretary Eedfield. Director of the Boston Fish Market? What 
is the nature of your business? 

Mr. Fulham. I am a director of the Boston Fish Market Corpora- 
tion, but my business is the fish business. 

Secretary Eedfield. In what form? 

51950—18 12 



178 AMEEICAN-CAXADIAlSr FISHEETES CONPEEENCE. 

Mr. FuLHAM. I am a member of the Boston Fish Pier Co. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you handle fresh fish ? 

Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. In what respect do your views differ from 
those expressed by Mr. AtAvood and Mr. Parker and Mr. Poole? 

Mr. FuLHAM. Ma' AdeAAs are exactly similar to theirs. 

Secretary Redfield. The fear has been expressed by a certain gen- 
tleman here, Mr. Fulham, and it is just mentioned to me by my 
colleague. Mr. Chief Justice Hazen, that if aa'c obtained an increased 
demand for fresh fish on a considerable scale by the process of educa- 
tion, AA'hich Ave have been talking about, it Avould be possible for 
countries Avhere shipbuilding may be less costly than it is in America 
to come in under the arrangement Avhich we have been discussing and 
practicalh^ take the business from the American ships and so supply 
the demand by the aid of foreign A'essels- and foreign labor and 
foreign capital. Has that subject cA'er been given thought by you? 

Mr. FuLiiAiM. Why, I have thought of it in a Avay, not to any great 
degree, but since yesterday morning I haA'e thought of it, ancl I also 
spoke of it on the pier, and I think that I am safe in saying that the 
sentiment of a hirge if not a majority of the fish dealers on the pier 
is that Ave are not only not afraid, but not cAen, as you said last 
night, suspicious of them. As a matter of fact. Ave Avelcome and are 
desirous of having all the fish brought into Boston that Ave can get. 
AVe ai-e not afraid of the foreigners coming here and driving us out 
of business or competing Avith us in any Avay. That is to say. Ave 
are not afraid of competing Avith them, provided, of course. Ave are 
})laced on an equal footing Avith them. 

Secretary Redfield. It Avould have an important bearing upon 
Ihat question. Avould it not — as to AA-hether there Avere an excessiA'e 
demand after the Avar for a continued period upon the product of 
the shipyards of Great Britain? Would it not be so? 

Mr. FrLiiA.Ai. Why. that is to say. if I understand your question 
correctl3\ they avouIcI be unable to build for aAvhile. having to attend 
to domestic Avork? 

Secretary Redfield. Precisely. The effect of the submarine in- 
iquity, to use a mild term, has been to destroy a very considerable 
proportion of the AvorkVs tonnage. It seems to be the accepted fact 
that the merchant tonnage of the Avorld to-day is insufficient, far 
from sufficient, to meet the normal demands of the Avorld in peace, 
and that therefore there must be a restoration of that tonnage in 
order to restore the normal balance of movement of freight around 
the Avorld, of all kinds, and that in these losses, by the very nature of 
the case, arising from her supremely large merchant marine. Great 
Britain has been the largest individual sufferer. It seems to be the 
fact that she is noAv doing so much as in her poAver lies by the build- 
ing of standardized ships to deal Avith that A-ery serious problem. 
With that state of affairs. Avith that predicament, is it. in your opin- 
ion, mistaken to suppose that that task of building some 6.000,000 
tons of merchant shipping or more— I think perhaps I understood it, 
Mr. Robertson, did I not ? 

Mr. Robertson. Yes; you did. 

Secretary Redfield. I understand it Avhen I say 6,000,000 tons is 
a task which must have its effect upon her capacity to build trawlers 
or any other vessel of the kind : is it not so ? 



AMEEICAN-CAN"ADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 179 

Ml'. FuLHAM. Why, it a\ oiild seem to me. from what you have said, 
that they would be very busy at home. 

Secretary Redfield. Very busy at home. Now. furthermore, it is, 
of course, the fact that the British fleet of trawlers has been at risk 
in this war. 

Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. 

Secretary REDriELn. And a very considerable number of them 
have been destroyed, and that all of them substantially are at risk 
to-day. So that in addition to the problem which I have suggested 
to you there is the further problem before competition in the open 
markets of the world is possible — there is the further problem, I say, 
of restoring her own fish -food supply by restoring the fleet from 
which it comes. That vrould appear to be true, wouldn't it? 
Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. And with that general statement in mind, do 
I understand correctly that you feel that under those circumstances, 
given an equal opportunity, you have no fear of their competition? 
Mr. FuLHAM. Absolutely none. 
Secretary Redfield. I thank you very much. 

Mr. FuLHAM. I might add, Mr. Secretary, if you will allow me, 
that I was talking with Mr. O'Brien last evening, and he was sorry 
that he hadn't mentioned one fact, that in building the fish pier it 
was l)uilt with a view to a great extension of the fish business. So 
that I think we will be able with our facilities there to hike care of 
iihnost any increased production that may occur in the next few 
years, anyway. 

Mr. Atwood. There is one thing that must be of. interest to you and 
Dr. Smith, although it is a very small point, in connection with 
introducing new varieties, etc. I am also interested in a concern 
that handles quite a considerable number of fish from various shore 
plants along the coast, and one dealer on the wharf came to me 
within a very short space of time and asked me to get for him 
20 shark of 200 pounds each. I said : " Do you know what they are 
worth?'' He said: "No: I haven't any idea.'" Well, I told him, 
" To-da3^ or yesterday, we had one shark that brought 8 cents a 
pound." That is what the fishermen get for it. I thought Mr. 
Smith might be interested to know that even a shark was selling 
pretty well now. 

Secretary Redfield. We are A'ery much interested in sharks. The 
shark has become a very respectable member of society. 

Mr. Burns. May I ask you to repeat what you said this forenoon 
in regard to the increase of the English Navy during the present 
war? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. The statement has been made within 
a very few weeks that the English Navy has doubled during the 
war. 

Mr. Burns. That clone during the war time would lead us to be- 
lieve that their capacity for turning out ships is very great, and that 
at the close of the war, diverting their whole capacity into merchant 
ships and new fishing vessels, would immediately turn out an enor- 
mous amount of tonnage. I can't figure it out into millions or 
billions. But as a matter of fact, I have it on very good information 
that at one period in normal times before the war a shipbuilding 
concern in England in 60 days turned out, launched, 55 IraAvlers. 



180 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. 

Fifty-five trawlers in 60 days. If that is the case, diverting all their 
efforts into merchant vessels would give ns an enormous amount of 
tonnage. Perhaps, to support that statem^ent, which seems to be 
doubtful in the minds of some of my hearers, some of our large 
concerns in this coiuitry avIio have never entered into the shipbuild- 
ing business have stated to our (Jox eminent tliat every three days 
they wall turn out one of our destroyers. 

Secretary Redfield. No, Mr. Burns. 

Mr. Burns. Am I Avrong on the 120 again ? 

Secretary IIkdfikli). I think, Mr. Burns, Ave will have to not be 
afraid of the 55 trawlers in GO days. 

Mr. BuKNS. Well, I wish I had my friend, Mr. Eich, here. He 
nuule that statement, and I think he is a man who carries figures 
pretty readily. 

Chief Justice Hazen. How many days were they at Avork before 
they got to that stage ? 

Mr. Burns. They undoubtedly had their material all ready. But 
that seems to me as not so erroneous. 

Secretary IvEDFiELn. I am thoroughly familiar Avith some of the 
largest English shi])yards, I don't think there is any yard in Great 
Britain that has even half that number of Avays on Avhich ships could 
be built at the same time. And Avhile it is true that they build ships 
more readily than Ave do over there 

Mr. Robertson. T can give yon the figures of the last year, Avhat" 
Ave are building now. The absolute record of mercantile shipbuild- 
ing before the Avar — in fact, in 1913 we turned out just over 2,000,000 
tons. Although that fell very heavily in the first and second years 
of the Avar. And they are noAv turning out in this fourth year of the 
war 2,500,000 tons of mercantile shii)]nng. The actual naval-ship- 
I)uilding program, I doubt if there is anybody that knoAvs; I cer- 
tainly do not. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, that is the big yards. I might 
explain Avhat Mi'. Robertson says — I am not sure you could all hear. 
And I think Mr. Robertson could be said to speak somewhat officially 
on the subject for (rreat Britain. The largest annual output of ton- 
nage before the Avar in all the yards, the merchant yards, of Great 
Britain Avas 2.000,000 tons ; and at the present time, under very high 
pressure, the annual capacity is about 2,500,000 tons. At that rate 
it Avould take something over three years after the war to restore 
their nuirine Avhere it Avas Avhen Avar broke out, not counting any 
traAvlers at all. Noav, in addition to that, the great tonnage that has 
been added to their navy has been added in very large part, prob- 
ably in major part — nobody knoAVS— through the great dockyards of 
Great Britain, the great official navy yards in Avhich the construction 
of destroyers and battleships and cruisers has ahvays gone on at a 
nnich higher rate than Ave have ever done in this country. That 
does not ap])ly, hoAvever, to the building of merchant ships. Fur- 
thei-more, I think, Avhile Ave are on that subject — I think Mv. Robert- 
son Avill agree Avith me — the Avage question in Great Britain has 
shoAvn a very material advance, a very great adAance. Probably as 
great an advance as in this country. And there is not quite as 
marked an outlook looking toAvard its reduction after the war as the 
gentlemen managing the great English shipyards Avish there Avere. 
I used to be in a very modest Avay connected Avith a concern in Bel- 



AMEEICAl^-CANADIAN" FISHEEIES CONFEEElSrCE. ISl 

fast, Ireland, which was just across the street from the great ship- 
yard of Holland & Wolff, the yard which built the Olympic and 
Titanic^ and vessels of that kind. It is one of the largest yards, 
is it not? 

Mr. RoBEiJTsox. Yes, indeed. 

Secretary Redfield. One of the biggest Awards in Great Britain. 
And I can assure you that they are in no position to build '25 trawl- 
ers at once, large as they are. It is the biggest yard in the Kingdom. 
So that I think there is no need to worry on that ground. 

]Mr. Atwood. If I might add a further word along similar lines — 
that is. taking up again the whiting and the industry on the cape — 
each year the number of cold-storage plants and fishing traps, and 
so forth, has increased. One would almost think increased faster 
than the demand, than the goods could be disposed of. But it really 
seeuis from our expei'ience down there, with every new plant, that 
not only can they sell their entire product but everybody else does 
and then there is always some one lacking. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. HENRY OTTE, MANAGER OF THE 

BAY STATE FISH CO. 

Secretary Redfield. Can you add. Mr. Otte. anything to what 
Mr. Parker, and Mr. Poole, and Mr. Atwood, and Mr. Fulham 
have said on the possibilities of education? 

]Mr. Otte. I think not. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you any reason to differ from them on 
their views on that matter? 

Mr. Otti:. Why, generally speaking, no. 

Secretary Redfield. And how, in particular? 

Mr. Otte. I would not particularize. 

Secretary Redfield. I didn't know but what you Avere trying- 
some camouflage upon the commission. 

]Nfr. Otte. Seeing as I was born in Xew York I Avill leave that part 
out. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. W. A. REED, SECRETARY 
GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Reed. Answering the inquiry of the chief justice in regard 
to the manufacture of hen food from waste, I am very glad to in- 
form you that we have such a concern successfully conducting busi- 
ness at Gloucester. P^rom the waste they manufacture glue, hen food, 
poultry food, and so forth. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Is the meal they manufacture there used for 
cattle food I 

]Mr. Reed. I hardly think so. I have never seen their advertise- 
ment covering cattle food : they advertise quite largely for hen food. 
Plowever. I will endeavor to find that out. 

Secretarv Redfield. Have vou ever been to Prince Rupert, Mr. 
:Reed ? 

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. 

Secretarv Redfield. Were vou connected with the fisheries there 
at all? 

Mr. Reed. Xot at all. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you happen to know whether there is a 
cold-storage plant there or not? 



182 AMEKICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Mr. Keed. There was none there when I was there. 

Secretary Redfield. How long ago were yon there ^ 

Mr. Reed. 1908 Avas the last time I went throngh there. 

Secretary Redfteld. Are yon familiar with conditions on the 
Fraser River? 

Mr. Reed. Only by hearsa}'. 

Secretary Redfield. Not from personal knowledge? 

Mr. Reed. Not from personal knowledge. 

Secretary Redfteld. Did yon know of any complaint on the part of 
the American fisliermen on the Pacific coast as to the way in which 
they were treated in Prince Rupert ? 

Mr. Reed. I have never heard any complaint. 

Secretary Redfteld. Did yon ever hear any complaint as to the 
eli'ect upon the AiTierican fishing fleet of the requireiTTent of our cus- 
toms officers in Ketchikan that tliey sail direct from Ketchikan to the 
fishing grounds? 

Mr.IxFED. No, sir. I will endeavor to have you iiTeet the gentleman 
I spoke of to-morrow. 

Secretary Redfield. I will be very glad indeed if Mr. Reed can be 
present at the meeting. Now, gentlemen, as they say in the prayer 
meetings, the meeting is in your hands. We do not wish to close our 
hearings in Boston at this time without everybody having had a free 
chance to be heard. We appreciate your courtesy in coming. We ap- 
j3reciate the very thoughtful way in which youi' statements have been 
made ; they have been more than helpful. But noAV I Avant to say that 
if any of you have anything he woidd like to say, let it noAv be said. 

STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE E. WILLEY, PRESIDENT BOSTON 
FISH MARKET ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. WiLLEY. For the past two days I have been very much inter- 
ested in the remarks from the various branches of the industry, not 
only from our own city, but representing the neighboidng toAvns and 
cities, and the principal topic has been on fresh and frozen fish. I 
think very little has been said about the salt or canned fish. And Avhile 
interested to a more or less extent in the fresh and frozen fish, the 
larger part of my interests are in the salt and canned fish. It has 
been the prevailing opinion up to a feAv years ago — that is for per- 
haps, Ave might say, 8 or 10 years past — that the salt-fish industry Avas 
sort of dying out, and in its place the fresh and frozen part of the 
industry Avas coming up, Avhich I think to a more or less extent Avas 
true for a period. 

But Avith the improved facilities for handling fresh and frozen 
fish, more especially frozen, Avhich, by the Avay. I believe is one of the 
most logical ways to distribute fish in the best condition to the large 
portion of the consuming trade — still there is a large section of the 
country, and in the remote or outstanding sections, Avhere it probably 
can not be done for a number of Aears anvAvay successfully, and these 
sections no doubt use large quantities of the fish salted or canned. 
And I think the figures Avill bear me out that instead of waning the 
salt and canned fish industry is gaining and has started again, in the 
last tAvo or three years especially. While Ave talk here of handling in 
a season, as some have said, or in certain times, 10,000,000, 1^^,000,000. 
or 13,000,000 pounds of fresh frozen fish their sales as a whole in salt 



AMERICAN -CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 183 

and canned fish are very much heavier at the individual periods than 
of fresh or frozen fish. For instance within a very short time I know 
of one single sale of salt fish of 0,000.000 pounds that was made. Of 
course, that is quite a large, and I guess probably one of the largest, 
salt fish sales. And in connection with this increased supply, which 
I personally believe we should all welcome, we must bear in mind that 
irrespective of what my brethren say from the pier. I do not believe 
we are prepared to handle in any such quantities as has been out- 
lined might be made jjossible. In fact, there are a number of times 
occur, when the fishing season is on, especially, say, this past year, 
Avhen, if it Avere not for the fact that the salt fish men came in and 
handled large (}uantities of these products — referring especially to 
herring and mackerel, that the freezers were unable to take care of 
here, and even ship them from here down to Maine — anywhere they 
could get them in and put them in properly — that there would have 
been nothing left for those fish except to either dump them or send 
them to the glue factories. In fact, I think even so that some fish had 
to go to the glue factories. I have known, within a few years, of 
mackerel coming in in such large quantities that the freezers and the 
salt people couldn't handle them all, and they were sent to the glue 
factories. Xow. I believe there is room for all the fish we possibly can 
bring in here e\entually, but not until we are better prepared to han- 
dle them and on a more scientific and concerted scale than we are at 
present. And I believe, as was said in the opening of yoar hearing, 
that while no doubt there are certain classes and certain parts of this 
industry at the present time which would be more or less affected — or 
l^erhaps I might say that they think the}^ woidd be more or less af- 
fected — I believe if they should look ahead and go on to the broad 
scope, as outlined by your committee and yourself at the opening of 
this hearing, they would find that their fears are groundless. And in 
that respect I — speaking, as I think, gentlemen, for a large portion of 
the trade altogether in the various lines; not in any particular one 
branch — I believe the people of Xew England would welcome an}^ 
such plan as outlined when you started the hearing. 

vSecretary REoriELD. I thank you, Mr. Willey. It will be a pleasure 
to the conference to recei\e at any time during the next two or 
three months, and at the convenience of anyone who may wish to 
couniuinicate with it, an^' supplementary written statement or brief, 
or information in any form that it nu\y be the pleasure of your- 
self or anyone with whom you may come into communication to 
forward to us. Any such stateuient might be addressed to the 
Secretary of Commerce at Washington and would receive careful 
attention and be considered carefully by the conference in making- 
its final findings. In order to make it perfectly clear to you that 
there is no haste of any kind intended, it is probable that the con- 
ference will go in the spring, at a time not yet even discussed, to the 
Pacific coast and to British Columbia, and it would not make up its 
findings or conclusions until after that tri]D had been taken and the 
time had been sufficient to discuss yery candidly and fully the in- 
formation now being obtained and which is to be obtained. So that 
there will be ample time to consider any facts that anyone may 
desire to lay before the conference. 

Mr. Sweet. I would like to have Mr. Parker clear up one matter. 
I think you made a little intimation or suggestion that the supply 



184 AMEEICAN^-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COISJ^FEEENCE. 

of fish might be exhausted if the market Avere very AAidelv extended 
by educational propaganda. Did you not? 

Mr. Paeivee. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Sweet, Just exphiin what you mean. 

Mr. Pabkeb. Well, if you had this very big increase, as was talked 
about, possibly they might catch up the fish — they would not be as 
plenty as they are now. 

Mr. Saveet. Have you reference to any particular kinds of fish? 

Mr. Paekee. Why, the common kinds that they are catching noAV. 
such as cod. haddock, hake, pollock, and so forth. I thought if that 
might happen in time Ave Avould have to put back into the sea some 
that Ave took out — that is. spaAvn. 

Dr. S:NriTH. Is it a fact, Mr. Parker, as I have heard intimated 
since I came to Boston, that there have been more ground fish 
on the banks off the Massachusetts coast this year than for many 
yi^ars? 

Mr. Paekee. Why, I think there have oft' farther, but right on 
what we call our shore grounds for a year or tAvo there they Avere 
very short, and the boys got very small catches, but by not fishing 
tliem they seem to come back again. And then last year they fished 
there moi'e and got better catches. I had reference more than any- 
thing else to the steamers. The steamers a fcAv years ago were get- 
ting very large catches on Georges, and then there Avas a time Avhen 
they didn't get as good catches. Xoav they get on again this year and 
seem to liaA'e found the fish more plentiful. 

Dr. S:mitii. Speaking of the shore fishes, I Avould like to ask 
^Ir. AtAvood, Avho has had considerable experience around Cape 
Cod, Avhere the tra]) fishing is more extensive than anvAvhere else 
on the Massachusetts coast, Avhether he has observed Siuj general 
or special decrease in the fishes that are caught in those Aveirs. 

Mr. Atavood. My belief on the question of our shore fishes, as I 
stated at the beginning — Ave catch Avhat Ave call seasonable varieties, 
and certain varieties have shoAvn a decrease and other varieties have 
shoAvn some increase. It seems to vary and it is pretty hard to tell 
accurately Avhether, taking the situation as a Avhole, there has been 
any decrease or am^ increase. This last year there Avere plenty of 
mackerel in the bay. Last year and the year before Ave caught fairly 
hii'ge quantities of tuna fish — larger than Ave liaA'e caught for a 
number of years previous. Whiting seems to be plentiful at all 
times. alMiough this year, as I recall it, as it is told me, they usuallv 
have a fairly good fall on Avhiting. but this fall tlie Avhiting Avas 
A'ery liglit. Three or four years ago Ave had a A'ery heavy run of 
herring in September: since then the run has been nmch smaller. 
They have gone in April and INIay. In some years Ave Avill have large 
runs of herring and other years we have not. The Aveak fish and 
the blue fish both seem to have practically disappeared from our 
coast. T don't think that that has been due to the fact that they 
have been caught up at all : I think they are migratory and have 
taken other channels due to the feed or something Avhich has led 
them someAvhere else. I don't knoAv Avhether that ansAvers your 
(]uestion at all. Dr. Smith. 

Dr. S^iiTH. It gives just the information I desired. 

Mr. Saveet. The creation of a market for ncAv kinds of fish, the 
fish that have not heretofore been considered edible, Avould in a 



AMEEICAlsr-CANADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE, 185 

measure make provision, would it not. under a wider marlvet, for a 
greater demand ? 

]Mr. Atwood. It certainly Avould. 

Mr. SwEpyr. That would play, you think, quite an important part 
in supplying a larger demand, if you had this educational propa- 
ganda that would greatly increase the demand? 

Mr. Atwood. Yes; I surely do. The demand has got to go along 
more or less hand in hand with the supply, as Mr. Willey has said. 
We have at times had lots of fish in Boston, and if there was not 
the demand for them we could not dispose of them. I think we 
could handle with our present equipment in Boston larger quan- 
tities on certain specific clays than, we are showing on account of 
not having the demand for it. Unfortunately, so far we have not 
been able to regulate a steady, constant, even supply. We get heav}?^ 
days and light days, and sometimes the days are heavier than any 
cold-storage plant or the fresh fish demand can possibly take care of. 
Yet, again, if that same supply could be distributed over a little 
longer period, or if the entire product Avas such that it could be held, 
then we could of course take care of it to a larger degree and per- 
haps take care of all of it. 

^Ir. BrRxs. I would just like to have a word relative to the pos- 
sible surplus. During the ]3ast year we have disposed through onr 
company of about 3,500,000 pounds of oversupply at a very low 
price, considering that we are working to get high prices, so-called, 
and have sold also to a canning concern' during the same year 
possibly -1,000,000 pounds. To-day, under the existing conditions on 
the pier, in the dead of winter, with the so-called great scarcity of 
foods in this country, there are probably in excess of 200,000 pounds 
of fresh haddock on the ])ier to-day that can not be marketed at 6^ 
cents a pound. That is in the face of the conditions that we have 
had within a week, or I would say within two weeks, of a 10-cent 
and 12-cent market, and those fish to-day are in the packing houses 
and can not be moved at Qj cents per pound. 

Xow, while that does not perhaps mean a great deal, there is a 
bare possibility that without proper care we can overstep. Over- 
production is not an unusual thing in any line. While to-day it 
seems as if you can handle the whole surplus product and make a 
good sale of several hundred cars, and so forth, the thing possibly 
can get stuck. . Fish is a very peculiar thing, and as I told yoiu a 
slKU't time ago, New England is our chief outlet for the salt-water 
fish. We can with care go beyond New England, and, as Mr. Wille}^ 
sa,ys, the frozen fish is the solution of the question. But in the sum- 
mertime, or in the open season, we will say, for fishing through the 
lakes and rivers and the southern clime, they produce their own local 
fish and they are well taken care of. Up to a short time ago it 
was a peculiar thing that you should send any fish to the locality 
of our southern waters and to the Mississippi Valley. And it is 
barely possible when we return to normal times that they will be 
taken care of in their own local waters. But we must be careful. 
AYe must protect the investment on our own producing end to a 
great extent and not overstep. I would rather handle two pounds 
of fish than one, because it is sold at so much per pound profit; 
nevertheless, with the building that is going on at the present time, 
with the difficulties of war, the possibility of bringing foreign bot- 



186 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN FISIIERIKS CONKIiRENCE. 

toms in here, we cerlaiiily will lunc (»\ criirodiicl ion. woi-k as liard as 
yoii have a mind to. 

Secretary Kkdfikld. I would li]<e to put upon the reeoi'd at this 
jiiouient a inenioraiiduni which Mr. Kol)ertsoii has handed to nie: That 
in estimating- what the liritish shipyards ha\e to do after the Avar. il 
must be remeuibered that they have not only to build new tonnage 
but to reconvert to mercantile uses merchant ships that are now be- 
ing used as naval cruisers, transports, anxiliaries, etc. This is a 
very large percentage of the ordinary i)eace tonnage of (Jreat Brit- 
ain, and means in additi(m to the other inatt(>rs of which we hjive 
s])oken that the British yards will he kept \ei'v busy for a long time 
ii>storing the formei- condition. 

y\r. IvKKi). Mr. Secretary, may 1 ask thiongh you, oi' some of 
the gentlemen who are familiar with the fresh fish and freezing in- 
dustry — entiivly without conmient on my jjai't, but ha\'ing heard it 
discussed several times — whether or not it is feasible, in \'iew of the 
fact that frozen fish are best handled — whether it is feasible to have 
fioating refrigerators, floating i-efrigerator shij^s, which could be 
sent out to the fishing gromuls at the time that they were catching 
and i)ut the fish directly into the freezers there at the time they were 
landed, or to materially assist in handling in any way'^ AVould il be 
feasible to construct such ships and o])erate Ihem in any way iVoui 
any standi>oint ? 

Ml'. BooLK. 1 think there ha\'e l)een sexeral experimenis along 
those lines. It is feasible on some \arieties. TIowe\ei', on the varie- 
ties — perhaps exclusi\e of the'herring on our shores, I don't l)elieve 
it would be feasible. B certainly would not be possible to send 
i-efrigerator shii)s lo the fishing grounds to buck the elements; as 
lots of the craft do to-day. Your expense, to begin with, would 
be prohibitive, and your element of risk would be great. I don't 
believe it is here thought it w^ould be feasible. Tt has been tried on 
the Pacific, and tried with some success, in towing refrigeratoi- 
ships. T know of one in ])articular that goes to Alaska each year, 
buying halibut and salmon from the native fishermen. In that 
case they can anchor in the bays adjacent to the fishing grounds, 
and secure some seasons a full catch, depending more or less on 
conditions governing those grcmnds; and can also be moved from 
one, point to another. That might api)ly to halibut and salmon 
because the grounds are adjac(>nt to tlu> inshores, to the bays— »the 
sahnon jjarlicularly. 

Secretary Redfikli). Do T infer correctly, Mr. Boole, that you feel 
that the refrigerator ship here emi)loyed is of such a character 
that she can not stand the rough liuifeting that a xcssel has to en- 
dure in the North Atlantic^ 

Mr. BooLK. Such a ship coiiKl he built, hut it would he very costly 
and very bulky. The refgrigerating e(iuii)ment, machinery, etc., 
takes up a large amount of space. V(m untlerstand the i>rocess of 
fi'eezi ng. The modern process of freezing mackerel or ground 
fish is in pans, those pans holding about P)() i)ounds each. Those 
fish are cai-efully placed in the i)an, the pans are placed upon coils 
in freezers wIkmv the (emi)erature is at zero and under — ]n'ef- 
(>rably under. 

.Vl'ter they arc frozen sufficiently they are taken olf those coils 
in the pans ami grazed — dipped, as we call it — dipj^ed in water. 



AMKItJCAX-rjAN'AOIAN KISt I KIM KS CONFRRKNCE. 187 

III (loiii^ that vv(i loos(;n the. fiHh from tli(i pan so that we are able 
to r'('iiiov(; it, in its shape — the shape of tJie pan. That water, or 
that ^hizin^, liermetically seals that against the dryin^-up process 
of the air, whieli nii^ht occur. Those fish then are placed in boxes, 
and M^:ain they are sealed against the action of the air. P'rozen 
fish will dry up eontiniifilly if exposed to the air. On a refri^ei-at- 
ing ship yon can iinii^ijic, to carry the (iqnipment necessary to 
handle nny (jiuintity of fish, it would make it almost |)rohibiti\'e. 
V'oii woidd iias'e to carry youi* pans and have yoiu- freezing- arr-tm^i^e- 
ments and storao<' f'aciliti(^s. 

Seeretaiy IJkoi (Knn. I think' Mr. Heed's su<^'^estion haidly went 
as far as ihal iiiorc pcrfcrl pr'occ^s. I think your tliou<:(hi was to 
chill, mei'cjy, wasii"! it '. 

Mr. Ukko. Infor-mat ion in any i-especl. 

Secr-etary Wvawwwm. W'c have built up rather an inl(M«-rttin^- ex- 
periment in refi-ij2'erat ion ourselves, Mr. Poole, We have just com- 
pleted and put into servic*; a vessel that was fitted up for use in 
research work in the West Aleutian Islands where there are no sea- 
|)orts. A vessel of about a thousand tons. 7'liat rar-iies a crew of fJO 
men and is so e()ui|)p('d that she carries fuel and food, fresh meat, and 
ve^i-etables. for (I\c montlis" supply for the entire crew of GO men, 
as well as her I'liel. ;iiid mak'cs uo port, ^oin^- out in May, June, July, 
.\u^iisl. and September, and eominf^ back in October, replenishing 
neither food nor fuel during that |>eriod. She has rather an in- 
teresting refriger-ating e(juipment, compi-ising two sections — one 
where tlu; lK;ef and fish is frozen, running down to zero, as you 
iiave just said, and maintained at that ; and the other a cooling de- 
partment in whieh \-eget;ibles are kept at a tem)>(!ratui-e, as I i-ecali 
it, of about 35. or something of tliaf kind. So far as T know, it is 
a uni()iie ship. 

Mr, PoonK. May I ask if those tilings go aboard the vr'ssel in the 
fjozen .stated 

Secretary \\.vmv\vam. \o; fiozen on hoard. The vessel has just 
been sent o\'ei- to the Mediterranean. We ar-e interested to see the 
r-esults of that climate. I'liat. so far as I know, is a unique shi|>. 

Mr. Pooi.K. We loaded one ship liei'e in Poston — an Australian 
beef e;ii-r-ier for the troops abi-o;id with ^i.OOO.OOO pounds on one 
ship. 

Secretary Ki;i)i-[Knn. \'ou froze the fisli and |daced them on botfrd 
f I'ozen ? 

Mr, Poorj-:. Ves. I ask'ed tli«' man in eharge of that shipment how 
he was going to handle them on the othei- side, and he said they were 
well ('(juipped to handle them. Put he in turn asked nre if I knew 
how long those fish would last after they got on the othei- side. T 
said I didn't know that I coirld guess very closely. .Vnd he said if 
they sent them up the line they woidd last tlii-ee meals. 

Ml". FuniiA.M. If I am not out of oidei' I thouglit I would like to 
say, in the matter of overproduction, for your information I would 
state that while I haven't any facts or figures with me, I do not recall 
any time, j)articularly within the last six months, that our company 
has been stuck, so to speak, with fish; and there liave heen nniny and 
many days when we were unable to get enougli to fill our orders. 
even at a very high price. 



188 AMERlCAlSr-CAlSrADIAISr FISHERIES COXPEEElSrCE. 

CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Secretary, before the meeting adjourns 
1 want very briefly, on behalf of the Canadian section of the con- 
ference, to express our appreciation of the treatment that we have re- 
ceived during- our stay in the city of Boston at the hands of the gen- 
tlemen who are more particularly interested in the fishing trade of 
this cit}^ We were received in a most cordial manner : we have been 
treated with the greatest hospitality, and we have had the advan- 
tage of listening here to statements made by gentlemen familiar 
with the industry Avhich we are discussing, all- of which statements 
have been made in the fairest possible spirit and with a desire, I 
think, to afl'ord us correct information, so that we may be able better 
than we otherwise would to come to a conclusion regarding the ques- 
tions that have been submitted to us for our consideration and for 
our report. Many questions ha^e arisen that are somewhat outside 
the main (luestion which we are considering here, and all of which 
have an important be*aring upon the fisheries of the country, and in- 
formation has been aii'orded to us that will prove of inestimable 
value, not only in connection with our present duties but in cxninec- 
tion with any future duties that we may have in regard to the fish- 
ery service in our OAvn country. Some matters have been referred to 
Avhich will form to some extent the basis of inquiry from the fisher- 
men of the maritime provinces. Avho we expect to uveet in St. John, 
New Brunswick, on Tuesday next, and on the following days, and I 
know we will talve every opportunity to probe to the bottom certain 
statements which have been made here to ascertain what the facts are 
in cases where gentlemen at this meeting Avere not prepared to fur- 
nish us Avith absolutely accurate statements i-egarding them. 

It will be a long time — speaking for myself personally, and I think 
in that regard I may spealc the sentiments of my colleagues as Avell — 
it Avill be a very long time before Ave Avill forget our visit to the city 
of Boston, the interesting tAvo days Ave have spent here in conference 
with the men Avho represent the fishing intei'ests of the city and of 
the State, and the very kind and hospitable treatment Ave have re- 
ceived. And I trust that the very kindly and good relations that 
haA'e marked ever}^ phase of the present meeting may simph" be typi- 
cal of the good relations Avhich are going to exist betAveen Canada 
aiTd the United States in future years. [Applause.] I Avas going to 
say — my friend, Mr. Found, has reminded me — that Ave Avill be more 
than delighted if it is possible for any of you to come to St. John 
and be present at the meetings there, and to ask any questions of the 
gentlemen Avho appear before us for the purpose of giving us in- 
formation. 

CLOSING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. 

Secretary Redfield. I should like to add to the invitation kindly 
given by his honor, the Chief Justice of Ncav BrunsAvick, by extend- 
ing, in behalf of the conference, an in.Adtation to any representatiA'e 
of any Boston interest, or of any Gloucester interest — and I shall be 
glad if the papers Avill take note of the uuitter — to send a representa- 
tive to St. John or to any other hearing of the conference and to 
take part in the hearings by asking questions or seeking any further 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAi^ FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 189 

light that ma}' be desired. We want to put the thing on the broadest 
possible plane, we want to have it treated with the largest possible 
volume of light and with the least possible volume of heat. 

We desire also to place upon the record our obligation to the press 
of the city of Boston for their courtesy and for the very intelligent 
and thoughtful way in which they have reported the proceedings of 
the conference. We should do injustice to our own feelings if we 
did not express our sense of gratitude to the Boston Chamber of 
Commerce for its kindness to you and to us in permitting us to 
occupy this room, and for the hospitality extended to us personally, 
which we can not hope wholly to repa}^ In kind let me say that we 
are very deeply indebted to j^ou — to many of you. This hearing in 
its spirit, and this conference in its form and spirit, let us hope, 
represent a departure from the somewhat devious waj^s of diplomacy 
as she is done, or as she was done in the past. Here we are, two 
peoples, to whom the great things are the same. I am fond of the 
Frenchman; I recognize our debt to him in our time of trouble; I 
recognize that to France we have a great obligation in literature, 
art, and inspiration in many ways; but after all, gentlemen, after 
all, it is only the inhabitants of the British Empire to whom the 
great phrases mean the same things they mean to you and me. The 
word '' home " is not found outside of the English language, and 
wherever it is spoken in English it means the same thing, and it 
does not mean the same thing anywhere else. There is an enormous 
difference between " my home " and " chez moi.'' The whole concep- 
tion of home is one Avhich is common to the Englishman, to the 
Canadian, to the Australian, and to the American, and to nobody 
else. So is the conception of wife, so is the conception of woman- 
hood, and all that those things mean. And Magna Charta Avas our 
fight, and Oliver Cromwell was a good American, and we are all 
subjects of King Shakespeare ; and those are the big things after all. 
The hearing is now adjourned to convene in Gloucester to-morroAv 
morning at 10.30. 

Mr. George E. Willey. I would like to ansAver for the Boston 
fish trade. Perhaps, as I stated last evening, Avhile there might be a 
division of opinion on the subject, there was none whatever on the 
matter of hospitality. If it has been a pleasure to you to receive this 
hospitality, I can assure you it has been doubly a pleasure to us to 
giA'e that hospitality ; and the pleasure of having met you, gentlemen, 
and the information and good it has done us has more than repaid us. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Thank you. 

(The hearing was adjourned at 4.40 p. m.) 



HEARING AT GLOUCESTER, MASS. 

Gloucester, February Z^ 1918. 

The Gloucester hearing of the American-(-anadian Fisheries Con- 
ference Avas held in the rooms of the Master Mariners Club, begin- 
ning at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 

The same representatives of the United States and Canada on the 
conference were present as at the Boston hearings. 

Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, presided. 

Among those in attendance at this hearing, in addition to the 
members of the American and Canadian delegations to the confer- 
ence, were the folloAving : 

Hon. ^^^ W. I.ufkin, Member of Congres.s. 

Hon. Chai'les I). Brown. State senator of Massachusetts. 

Orlando Mei-chant. William H. .Ionian & Co. 

Capt. .Tames H. Stapleton. seeretai'.v Master Mariners' Association. 

Edward P. Ring, port warden. 

Capt. Carl C. Yonns, vessel owner. 

Fred L. Davis, vessel owner and pi'esident (41oucester ?>oard of Trade. 

Thomas .J. Carroll. .ij:eneral manajier (Jorton-l'ew Fisheries Co. 

Ben.iamin A. Smith, vessel manager (rorton-l'ew Fisheries Co. 

E. Archer Bradley, genei'al manager S.vlvaniiis Smith & Co. 

.1. Manuel Marshall, vessel owner. 

Samuel <t. Poole, treasurer Amei-ican Halibut Co. 

Charles F. AVon.son. manufacturer of salt fish. 

•Judge S. I>. York, presiding justice of the district court. 

Henry D. Pinkham. president Heni-y D. Pinkham Co.. manufacturers of 

salt Hsh. 
Ralph J. Irving, local numager D. H. Lane Co., of Chicago. 
.John B. Freeman. (Jorton-Pew Fisheries Co. 
John A. .Johnson, director board of trale. 
Wilmot A. Reed, secretary board of trade. 
Percy W. Wheeler, boat builder. 
Capt. I'eter Grant, fishing captain. 
Alexander .J. Chisholm. vessel owner. 
E. Iv. Burnham, of E. Iv. Burnham Co. 
.John V. I'erkins. director board of trade. 
I^. C. I-'arkluirst. pi-esident Parkhurst Fisheries Co. 
Frank C. Pearce. (Jorton-Pew Fisheries Co. 
Henry F. Bi-own. (loiton-I*e\^- Fisheries Co.. also hxTil representative 

United States Departnient of Fisheries. 
Harry R. Christophuson. master rigger. 
.James E. Lenhart. sales manager (iort<jn-Pew Fisheries Co. 
Anthony Cooney, managing owner cold-storage plant. 
Augustus Hnbbard, alderman (city I. 
Maurice F. Foley, customs inspector. 
I^rof. Frederic Slocum, of United States Shipping t>oard l^ree Navigation 

School. 
Antonie E. Silva. city alderman. 
Alexander Chisholm, manager .John Chisholm Co. 
Capt. L^red Thompson, vessel captain. 
Capt. .John Mathieson. vessel captain. 

Capt. Thomas S. Nickerson, Bucksport. Me., former captain, now owner. 
Capt. George J. Tarr, ti-easurer George .J. Tarr Co., fish oils. 
Henry E. Pinkham, Henry PI I*inkham Co., manufacturers of salt fish. 
.Joseph McPhee, Russia Cement Co., glue, hen food, etc. 

191 



11)2 AMKHlCAN-tW^X.vniAX FISIIKKIKS CON l^KHENCR. 

Ariliui' ( '. l»;i\is. In'iisiin'i- l''r:iiik Iv l>:i\is Co.. l;ii-,i;i>si iiuii l-ni'dt'i- lisli 

(listribulors. 
Friiiik K. l)ii\ij>, lucsidciil I'iniik K. l>;i\is('(). 
Fred A. Morris. Dm vis Bms., salt lisii uiiiuuriKUircis. 
I>iniiel S. 'rnrr, (it'oryv .). Tarr Co., lisli oils. 
Albert S. .McKoii/.io. deputy eollt>c(or ol' llu> porl. 
.lames K. 'rolmau, rt^presentalive in Siaic leuislai lire. 
{'"isliiii.t;- ves.sel captains: 

Capl. (Jeorji'e 11. I'eojiles. 

Capl- l''rauk L. Hall. 

('apt. tkH)r,i;e 10. 11 i.u'.ii'i us. 

('apt. Klroy Trior. 

('a])t. (^eor.ue llanior. 

Ci\p\. John Barrett. 

('apt. William .Nelson. 

Caiit. .lames .Mason. 

Cajit. l>avid (Jiliis. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. 

Secretary Kkdkiku). The ineeliii^- will [)le:>se eoine [o order. It 
is not the purpose of the conference, oentlemen, to detain you with 
addresses. AVe are here not to have you hear us, but to "have the 
privilege of hearing- you ; and we are here to learn, not for the pur- 
pose of even atteinptino- to instruct so expert an audience as this. 

xVt the A'ery beginniuo- ] Avish to express n>y j-egret that one of the 
Canadian coniinissioners, Mr. (Jeorge J. Desha rats, the deputy sec- 
retary of the department of marine affairs of Canada, is prevented 
by illness from being- with tis. The experience we have had of his 
counsel thus far nuvkes it a source of very genuine regret that he is 
thus temporarily kept away from the conference through so un- 
pleasant a cause. 

The circumstances under which we tueet are perhaps such that 
they should be laid before you as a background for the discussion 
which is to follow. As regards the two countries here represented, 
they are now Hghting side by side against a common foe. If the 
cause for whicli Canada is giving her sons, an(f for which we are 
giving or abotit to give our own, shall fail, (xloucesler and Boston, 
aiul all Americans as Avell as Canadian ports, will do business accord- 
ing to rules laid doAvn in (Ternutny. I need hardly remind you that 
it is a sober fact that the (Terman Government almost a year ago 
this very time notilied us that we might send one ship a week, 
painted in a cei'tain way which they prescribed, into a certaiit i)ort 
which they mentioned; something, 1 think, that never theretofore 
happened to this great country of oiu's, and something which, I 
trust, no nation will ever have the temerity to .suggest again. 

But I remind you also, gentlemen, that w(> must not as American 
citizens carry on this discussion of to-day as if things were as they 
have been in the past. Within a very foAV weeks a German publica- 
tion has distinctly avoAved it as the policy of Germany to dominate 
the seas, saying that by "" freedom of the seas " they mean German 
domiitation of the seas; and the issue is, whether you aiul T and 
our brethren in Canada shall be free to pursue so much of our liveli- 
hood as depends upon the sea as we desire. Tliat c]uestion is asked 
you now and is being fought out in the first line of trenehes upon 
the other side. 

There is a power in the world which means that we shall not bo 
free if they can prevent it. That is one of the conditions luider 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 193 

wliich we have met. The other is a condition of a Avorhl-wide sliort- 
age of food. In every one of the great nations of the world the food 
supply is relatively scant. There is not sufficient, as there has been 
in the past, to go around. Great Britain, which has been the largest 
consumer of fish food in the world — her annual consumption being 
more than three times our own per capita, or about 59 pounds per 
person per annum as compared with IS pounds in this country — has 
found her supply cut more than in half, and her fishing fleet largely 
devoted to ]Hirposes of war and very largely suffering from the dis- 
astrous incidents of war. As I had the pleasure of saying in Boston, 
there is no finer record in the world than that of the fishermen of 
Great Britain who, through these fearful years on the North Sea, 
have been upholding the right to carry on their occupation where 
they wnll, the same right precisely for which we are fighting along- 
side of our brethren in Canada at this time. 

I invite ,you to consider, among other things, the fact whether it 
is not possible in this country to greatly increase, under these con- 
ditions, the den)and for fish food, for the sale of which this is so 
great a center. I point out to you that we consume about two lul- 
lion pounds of fish annually, with a population of 100,000,000; that 
Great Britain consumes, with a population of 4.5,000,000, over four 
billion poimds annually, or sojnething more than double, with less 
than half the population. I point out to you that Canada, wath her 
population of one-tenth of ours, consumes nearly double the amount 
of fish per person that we do. Among all the great nations of the 
world our Xation is the one which consumes the smallest amount of 
fish per capita, or 18 poimds as compared with 29 ])ounds in Canada 
and 58 or 59 pounds in Great Britain. 

This question suggests itself for consideration. If efforts were 
made to greatly increase this food supply, and if our fish consump- 
tion per capita were doubled, it would still be but about half of the 
fish consumption of Great Britain, and we should have to find some- 
where about 2,000,000,000 more pounds of fish j)er aimimi to meet the 
demand. Great Britain is at the moment considering the possibility 
of multiplying her fish consumption by four after the war. If that 
effort is successful, you can readily imagine Avhat the result will be 
upon the fishing industry of the world. Those are large factors 
in the problem, which are bound to form in a measure the back- 
ground for our thought. 

We have not come here, however, to press any viewpoint, to lay 
down any fixed practice or principle, but merely to learn wdiat we 
may as to how^ it may be possible to stop for good and all the fric- 
tion which has existed for many years past between two nations 
which now in one common cause are giving their sons and their dol- 
lars on the same field of strife. We surely ought not to stay apart 
on the question of food if M-e are willing that our children should 
die side by side, as they are doing on the fields yonder. 

Therefore, in making a tentative suggestion to you for the purpose 
of clear thought, let me also make it perfectly clear that this is not a 
fixed thing, but is subject to change. We are here to learn. Further- 
more, our -discussions will range into every phase of the mutual 
fisheries concerns of the two countries. We are not limited, nor are 
you limited. AVhatever information you may have now or later, or 
51950—18 1.3 



194 AMEEICAISr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

whatever facts you can give on any phase of the fisheries industry, 
we are anxious to get. To make tlie matter perfectly clear, if any of 
you feel that you are not for any cause able to present as fully as you 
wish to do the facts you have at your command, if you will be good 
enough to address them to me at any time within the next two or 
three months at Washington, I assure you that they Avill receive the 
very earnest thought and care of the commission. 

Mr. Frederick L. Davis (president of the Gloucester Board of 
Trade). Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as those here to-day were 
not present at the Boston hearing, that the articles be read over at 
this time, the points that were then suggested for discussion. 

Secretary Eedfield. Notice was sent on the '24th of January to the 
New England fish industry that the following subjects were before 
the conference and would be made, among others, the subject of 
study and consideration : 

1. The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses 
to American fishing vessels, by whatevei- means they may be pro- 
pelled, and the reduction of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered 
ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel, and that the renewal of the 
licenses from year to year be not conditional on an Order in Council 
of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement 
itself. 

2. That United States fishing vessels be allowed to sell their fish in 
Canadian ports for Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as 
well as to sell in bond. 

3. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait and 
all other supplies and outfits in United States ports on ec[ual terms 
with American fishing vessels. 

4. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches 
direct to United States ports and sell them there, subject to customs 
duties, if any. 

5. That the fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the 
other be given clearances for the fishing grounds if so desired. 

6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks 
from fishing off the Canadian coasts during the closed season, for 
lobster fishing on such coasts. 

Perhaps it would be well to say in further definition that the privi- 
lege granted in the Canadian ports would, of course, include the 
privilege to all American fishing vessels, hoAvever propelled, of 
purchasing in those ports whatever supplies, equipment, or articles 
of that character they might need. 

Mr. Chief Justice, do you desire to say anything? 

STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I did not come here with the intention of 
saying anything at this stage, Mr. Secretary. Like yourself, I came 
here for the purpose of getting information. The sitting of this 
joint commission, hearing statements and evidence in the United 
States, as the same commission will hear evidence and statements 
from parties interested in Canada in the coiu-se of the next few 
days, is a new step forward in the direction of open diplomacy. 
I think it is typical of the close relations and the good feeling now 
existing between the people of the two countries. It is, as was said 
in Boston the other night, perhaps the most striking example of open 



AMERICAlSr-CAIirADIAlSr FISHERIES COISTFEEENCE. 195 

diplomacy that has so far occurred between nations that do not live 
under the same flag. At the present moment, when the relations of 
our countries are so close and intimate, when our sons on both sides 
of the line are fighting in the same cause, for the preservation of the 
same democratic institutions, for the sanctit}^ of treaty rights and for 
the protection of smaller nations, as well as for our own future lib- 
erty and prosperity, I think it is onW right and proper that in any 
negotiations we may have everybody should be taken fully into our 
confidence and that Ave should on both sides have the opportunity of 
hearing matters under consideration discussed from the view point 
of the other side. 

Of course, it is unnecessary to say to this audience, all of wdiom 
are very familiar with the subject, that the rights which American 
fishing vessels have in Canadian ports to-day are the rights obtained 
100 years ago, under the treaty of 1818, and that under those rights 
American fishing vessels have the right to go into Canadian ports 
for four purposes, and for four purposes only — for repairs, for shel- 
ter from storm, for the purpose of obtaining wood, and for the pur- 
pose of obtaining water. Those are the only rights that, under the 
treaty of 1818, fishing vessels of the United States have in our 
ports at the present time. 

Attempts were made about the year 1888, I think — 30 years ago — 
to have the thing extended, and commissioners were appointed to 
negotiate an agreement looking toward a treaty on the basis that if 
the United States would admit Canadian fish free of duty to the 
ports of the United States, Canada would accord to the United States 
fishing vessels the same rights in Canadian ports which Canadian 
fishing vessels have in our ports to-day. That is. they would have 
not only the right to go to those' ports for the four purposes I have 
mentioned but to go and purchase bait and other supplies, to ship 
crews, to transship their fish in bond through to the markets of the 
United States. An agreement was entered into along that line, sub- 
ject to the treaty being ratified by the Congress of the United States, 
and pending that ratification the Canadian Parliament passed legis- 
lation providing for what is known as the modus vivendi licenses, 
licenses which no doubt some of you gentlemen here have taken out 
in the past. That legislation provided that annual licenses might 
be issued to a United States vessel on the payment of the sum of 
$1.50 per registered ton of the vessel's tonnage, under which the 
American vessel would have the right to go into our ports, buy bait 
and other supplies, ship crew^s, and transship fish through in bond 
to the markets of the United States. Unfortunately — I think un- 
fortunately for both countries — that treat}' was not ratified by the 
Congress of the United States. So to-day the rights that the Ameri- 
can fishermen have in our ports are of a temporary character, sub- 
ject to being terminated any year, because from year to year this 
order in council is passed, anct it has not been passed, I can say to 
you without violating State secrets or the oath taken by the privy 
council, in any year without considerable opposition, advancecl and 
urged by Canadian interests. 

It is not desirable, I think, that this arrangement should go on 
simply as a temporary matter, liable to be canceled at any time, in 
any year, thus causing confusion to the fishing interests in the United 
States and confusion to certain interests in Canada. 



196 AMEBICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

By thQ tariff of 1913 the United States admitted Canadian fresh 
a)id frozen fish free into yonr markets, and not only Canadian fresh 
and frozen fish but fish from wliatever countr}^ it miglit come. It 
was not done as a favor to Canada ; it was done as a matter of domes- 
tic polic}^ of the United States, it being believed, I presume, by those 
who framed the tariff that it was for the interest of the people of 
the United States that fresh and frozen fish should be admitted free. 
That having taken place, the Government of the United States 
caused certain representations to be made to the Government of Can- 
ada, to the effect that as fish were admitted free to the United States 
it was felt that the Government of Canada should extend the modus 
vivendi to all vessels, however propelled, instead of limiting it, as 
it is now and has been for 30 years, to vessels driven by sail alone. 

Many things have occurred in the past 30 years. The fishing 
business has been largely revolutionizecl. Many of the fishing ves- 
sels are now propelled by steam or other motive power, and it is 
a small majority, I think, that are to-day propelled simply by the 
force of nature — the wind. 

In reply to that suggestion the Government of Canada, in cor- 
respondence, pointed out that this was not a privilege granted to 
Canada ; that it was a matter of domestic policy, and that the United 
States might terminate it at any moment they chose; that a different 
policy might prevail in the future, and that we might find that 
fish were no longer admitted free into the markets of the United 
States. We further pointed out that, Avhile you admitted fish free 
into your markets, there were certain restrictions which were im- 
posecl upon the Canadian vessels through your navigation and cus- 
toms laws which made it difficult for them to take advantage of the 
sending of free fish in here to the fullest extent; that our ves- 
sels were not permitted to come into your ports from the fishing- 
grounds. In this matter I am speaking solel}^ of the situation on the 
Atlantic coast, because a different rule seems to prevail on the Pacific 
coast. A different policy and practice is followed there under practi- 
cally the same law. But on the Atlantic coast the fishing vessels of 
Canada are not able to come into your markets with their catch with- 
out first proceeding to a Canadian port and there either transferring 
their load of fish to a trading vessel or else themselves taking out a 
license or registering themselves as a trading- vessel, and then pro- 
ceeding to your ports ; and those vessels, having come to your ports 
and unloaded their fish, are not then permitted to proceed to the 
fishing grounds by the shortest route — along the hypothenuse of the 
triangle — but have to clear for a Canadian port, and from that port 
to the fishing grounds, thus traveling by the base and the perpen- 
dicular of the triangle instead of by the hypothenuse — the short cut. 

We suggested, further, that there was also another matter that 
might be considered; that we were trying to conserve our lobster 
supply on the Atlantic coast; that we were having on our coast 
certain closed seasons during which no lobsters could be caught in 
our territorial limits — within the 3-mile limit — and that while we 
were enforcing that regulation well smacks were coming from the 
New England coast and catching- lobsters outside of the 3-mile limit, 
seeking the shelter of our ports at night and then going on to 
American ports with them; and that our fishermen had had the 
pleasure of sitting on the shore, prevented by our laws from catching 



A.MERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 197 

lobsters in thcit season, and looking out and seeing their American 
consins catching them beyond the 3-mile limit. Tvhile our action was 
intended to preserve the lobsters not only for our own benefit but for 
the benefit of everybody concerned in the lobster industry. 

The Government of the United States suggested, in a proper and 
statesman-like way. that there should be a conference on the sub- 
ject; that the whole matter should be discussed with the best of 
friendly feeling : and I am delighted to say that the best of friendly 
feeling' has prevailed between the American and the Canadian com- 
missionei-s at the hearings already held. 'Wherever we have been we 
have found a disposition to approach the subject from the stand- 
point of fair, honorable, and proper feeling between the two coun- 
tries, unhampered by any traditions or history of the past. 

So this commission has been appointed, representing both countries, 
on the one side Mr. Eedfield, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Sweet, 
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce: and Dr. Smith the highest 
authority on fishing in the United States; and on the other side 
myself and my associate j)resent. Mr. Found, superintendent of 
Canadian fisheries : also Mr. Desbarats. the deputy minister of naval 
service. "We have come here for the sake of getting information and 
discussing these matters. We are not limited, however, to a discus- 
sion of these matters that have been referred to. We have a right 
to consider any outside fishing questions that ma}^ have arisen be- 
tween Great T3ritain or Canada and the United States, and many 
other questions that have come ujd at our conference. 

On Tuesday, at St. John. Xew Brunswick, we will hear the rep- 
resentatives of the fishing industry of the Maritime Provinces of 
Canada, and no doubt there we will hear differences of opinion ex- 
pressed, as they were expressed in Boston yesterday and as no doubt 
they will be expressed here to-day. 

I might say that it will be a very gi-eat pleasure to us if at our 
meeting at St. Jolin on Tuesday next, and probably on Wednesday 
next, there were present representatives from this section of the 
Union, so that they might hear the viewpoint of our people, ask them 
any questions they please, and get the fullest possible information, 
because our desire is simply to elicit the facts, and then, having the 
facts before us. we can get together and see if we can not recom- 
mend to the Governments of our respective countries an arrangement 
that will put to an end the irritation that has existed in the past and 
that will be for the general benefit of the people who live on this 
North American Continent, whether they live to the north or the 
south of the international boundary line. 

There is no hurry about the matter, because some time in March 
or April we will have to proceed to the Pacific coast, to the State of 
W'ashingion. to British Columbia, from there to Prince Rupert and 
Ketchikan. Alaska, for the purpose of getting the views of the people 
there in regard to certain difficulties connected with the fishing situa- 
tion that exist on the western shore of this continent. 

As the chairman of the joint commission (Mr. Eedfield) has said, 
anyone who has any statement to make after we leave here in regard 
to any matter that may occur to him in the future can put his views 
in writing and file them with the commission. Any communication 
sent to Washington in that wav Avill be read bv the commissioners 



198 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. 

and discussed and considered, being oi\en the very hdlest possible 
consideration in our poAver. 

We have stated briefly what we are here for. We wouUl lilce to 
hear from fishermen, the representatives of the fishing interests of 
this historic port of Gloucester, which is knoAvn the wide world over 
as a fishing port. We would like to hear from you your Aiews 
touching these questions. 

Secretary Eedfield. On behalf of the American commissioners I 
wish to say that we join very earnestly in the invitation extended by 
Chief Justice Hazen to representatives of various interests in your 
port to come to St. John, if they can do so, and be present at the 
hearings there next Tuesday and Wednesday. We can assure you 
that the fullest opportunity will there be given anyone who may 
come representing Boston or (xloucester to ask questions, and we 
earnestly hope representatives from Boston and Gloucester may be 
present there in St. John to get information and to give advice in 
regard to any program that may be thought proper. 

STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS. PRESIDENT OF THE 
GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Davis. INIr. Chaii-man, I noticed the other day in Boston tluit 
there was quite a little hesitancy in getting things started. We have 
different points of view here in connection with our fishing industry, 
one man differing from another, and I think you Avould like to have 
those differences of opinion brought out. I w^ould like to ask Mr. 
Marshall, who is the representative here of large interests of a pecu- 
liar type in connection with shore fisheries, a man who knoAvs his 
business pretty well, to start off by giving his ideas. 

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LUFKIN. 

Congressman Lufkin. Mr. Chairman, if I may, at this point I 
w^ould like to ask one or two questions before we proceed farther. 
In view of the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion in 
the newspapers and otherwise to the effect that these agreements 
should be carried out in the interest of patriotism, perhaps, I want 
to ask your board if it is its intention, its idea, that these recom- 
mendations should be in effect simply as a war measure or as a per- 
manent arrangement between the two countries'^ I think perhaps 
the gentlemen hei'e would discuss the matter more intelligenth^ if 
they understood about that. 

Secretary Redfiei^u. What Ave have in mind, of course, is a perma- 
nent arrangement betAveen the Iavo countries; but it Avould be an 
error, Mr. Congressman Lufkin, to speak of these things Avhich 
have been read as being all or even a major part of Avhat the com- 
mission has in mind. These are simply a portion of the subject, are 
not intended to be the Avhole of it, and the discussion would be pro- 
ceeding along mistaken lines if it Avere to be supposed for a moment 
that the points suggested are the sole ones, or perhaps in the final 
analysis even a majority of the things to be considered. 

Congress)nan Lifkix. I have raised the question because undoubt- 
edly a permanent arrangement Avould require approval by Congress, 



AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEXCE. 199 

Avhereas I suppose a wav arrangement could be put into execution 
through a proclamation by the President under the food act. could 
it not? 

Secretary Redfield. I am sure I don't know. That is a thing that 
has not been considered, Mr. Congressman. 

Congressman Lufkix. I understand so. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. Our thought is purely to a permanent ar- 
rangement. There are certain features that have already been dis- 
cussed b}'' us — as. for example, the matter pending on Lake Cham- 
plain — that can be settled, I understand, by regulation. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Certain other matters ayouIcI require action by 
Congress; certain other matters would require a treaty, which in its 
turn would require the approval of the Senate. Our purpose is not 
limited, not confined to any one of these things, but is as broad as the 
relations of every kind, from Alaska to Cape Breton Island. 

Congressman Lufkix. I thank you very much. sir. 

STATEMENT BY MR. J. MANUEL MARSHALL, AN OWNER OF 
VESSELS SAILING FROM GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I had not intended 
to say anything just yet, and I did not know that ^Ir. Davis intended 
that I should make any remarks just yet. I wanted to hear from those 
whom I thought would perhaps be more vitally interested, in a way,, 
than I am. 

My interests in the fishing business are comparatively small. It is 
true that I am interested in a few vessels, but very few vessels ; and^ 
looking at my interest in a personal wa}^, I would say that I shoulcl 
prefer to let the present situation remain as it is. I do not want to 
see Gloucester lose her identity, individuality, or personality, if I 
might apply that word to Gloucester as the seat of the fishing in- 
dustr3\ I certainly would not like to see Gloucester lose her in- 
dividuality. 

I realize, as you saj^, Mr. Secretarj-, that the question is a broad one 
and that we ought to do what is best for the whole country. Let us 
draw a circle right around the whole of Xorth America. It ought to 
be done in that way, if it can be so done, in order that these jeal- 
ousies — and they are not petty jealousies, but the jealousies that each 
of us have of the other — may not prevail. There should be a circle 
clraAvn around the whole of North America in connection with this 
matter, and I think that is coming, although personally, as X say, I 
think I should prefer to let the thing stay as it is. I think there 
would be more money in my pocket and in the pockets of those I rep- 
resent to allow the situation to remain just as it is. 

But I think what I suggest is coming in time. I look forward to 
the time, and perhaps not in the far distant future, when our in- 
terests in the fisheries will be identical, as they are now in one re- 
spect: when American vessels will be visiting the Canadian ports and 
have the same access there and exercise the same rights and priv- 
ileges that they have in our ports. 

Your object, I understand, is to enlarge the supply of fish. 
Whether that is going to accomplish what you desire or not I don't 
know : but it will certainly help in a great measure. 



200 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

As I say, I do not care about discussing- the situation in all its 
different aspects or phases just now, until I hear from some of the 
others. But Mr. Davis has called on me, and I want to make these 
preliminar}'' remarks, to show how I feel personally. I say, however, 
speaking from a patriotic standpoint, from an enlarged view of the 
whole matter, that the time will come, and perhaps it is not very 
far away, when we will all use each other's ports as freely as we 
wish. 

Secretary Eedfield. May I ask you a question, Mr. Marshall ? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

Secretary EEnriiiLD. Taking tlie vessels that -you own, what is the 
nationality of the crews? 

Mr. Marshall. Portuguese, solely. That is, they are practically 
all Portuguese. 

Secretary Kedfield. And those who are not Portuguese are what ? 

Mr. Marshall. Why, there are very few others. I might say that 
they are all Poiiuguese. There are very few on tlie vessels Avho are 
not Portuguese. 

Secretary Eedfield. American citizens!* 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; some of them; and some not. 

Secretary Eedfield. Of what birth? 

Mr. Marshall. Mostly of Portuguese birth. The officers are 
American citizens, but principally of Portuguese birth. 

Secretary Eedfield. Naturalized? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. Most of the men. I think, are not natural- 
ized. 

Secretary Eedfield. The vessels are propelled by power? 

Mr. Marshall. Auxiliary power. 

Secretai-y Eedfield. And fi'om your knoAvledge of the vessel-own- 
ing industry, it is the general tendency, is it not. to have vessels 
propelled by power? 

Mr. Marshall. I think so. Some of the vessels did not have 
power until this year — that is, auxiliary power. I caused it to be 
put in. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has there been within recent years a tendency 
toward the consolidation of ownership of fishing vessels? In other 
words, are there as many individual owners as there were 10 years ago ? 

Mr. Marshall. No; I think not. 

Secretary Eedfield. How many Aessel owners are there in Glou- 
cester, about? 

Mr. Marshall. Well, with regard to the fishing interests, they are 
largelj^ centered in one industry in Gloucester, the Gorton-Pew 
Fisheries Co. 

Secretary Eedfield. You are not connected with that company? 

Mr. Marshall. No. 

Secretary Eedfield. They do own vessels? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. How many different operating owners of ves- 
sels are there in Gloucester ? ' 

Mr. Marshall. I don't know. Probably, taking people interested 
in the different vessels, there might be 100 owners of small vessels, 
and of larae ones there might 100 more. 



AMERICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES COXFEKEiVCE. 201 

Secretary Redfield. That. I understand, is a smaller number than 
was the case 10 years ago? 

Mr. Marshall. Well, as I say, I think the ownership of the vessels 
is largely centered m one concern, now. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, do I get from you the impression cor- 
rectly that* there is a substantially concentrated ownership of vessels 
in this port ( 

Mr. jSIaeshall. In the fishing industry : yes. 

Secretary- Redfield. In the fishing industry. I mean ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. There is one question I wanted to ask in 
regard to the privileges to be granted to our vessels, with respect 
to selling fish in a Canadian port. I notice that you say with respect 
to the tariff' duties, '' subject to the tariff duties." 

Secretary Redfield. If any. 

Mr. ]Marsiiall. Xo; you dont say that. But here, in reference to 
the United States, you sa}^, " if any.-' I wanted to know whether 
there was any significance to that or not. 

Secretary Redfield. The tariff, as a domestic problem, a ques- 
tion of raising revenue, is not directly within the function of this 
conference. 

Mr. ^Marshall. I wondered if it was the hope that the vessels of 
the United States might exercise all the privileges of the Canadian 
ports, as thej' desire? 

Secretary Redfield. I am very much interested in that, ]SIr. jNIar- 
^hall. I Avish you would give us your views on that. What do you 
think would l^e desirable? 

^Ir. Marshall. As I say. that is not a question that would con- 
cern me much, personally. These vessels of mine rarely make use of 
the Canadian ports. 

Secretary Redfield. Why not ? 

Mr. ?\Iarshall. They don't fish dovrn that way so much, don't have 
occasion to. 

Secretary Redfield. That is. it is not a matter of the law but a 
matter of your own individual policy or practice ? 

Air. jMarshall. Their policy in the matter of fishing is somewhat 
different. Those privileges, as fai- as my vessels and a great many 
others here, are not exercised, or are exercised but rarely, but I think 
the tendency is more and more that the fishing vessels of Gloucester 
will not make use of them. That is not only the result of my own 
experience," but what I have learned from others, that our fishing 
vessels do not exercise the privilege of going into the Canadian ports, 
and paying a license fee of $1.50 per registered ton for the j^urpose 
of getting bait, as they did formerly. That is, they do not do so so 
much. They take bait from here more than they did. and I think it 
is the wish of owners of vessels that they do take their supplies from 
home and go directly to the ground, rather than be delayed down 
there, and they do not make any use of Canadian ports more than 
they are absolutely obliged to. That feature, that privilege, as far 
as granting it to us is concerned, is not as beneficial now as it was 
formerly. At least, it appears to me so. 

Secretary Redfield. Wliat would be your suggestion as to the 
action on the part of the Canadian Government which would be most 
helpful to your industry? 



202 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Mr. Marshall. I say, so far as I am personal!}^ concerned, I pre- 
fer to have it remain as it is; but taking it from a broad standpoint, 
looking at it broadly and from the ])oint of view of the welfare of 
all. if (irloucester is not going to lose its identity and its individuality, 
you might say, because I think if it does you will hear very little of 
(irloucester, if Ave lose our vessels, I think perhaps such action as is 
suggested between the two countries might be taken. Of course, 
a great many of our people are somewhat jealous, naturally, as your 
people are in Canada. They don't Avant the American vessels to go 
there and get many privileges. We are all naturally jealous of each 
other, whatever pursuit we may be engaged in. . That is a well recog- 
nized fact. Avhether it is the fish game or anything else. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That is human nature. 

yiv. Maushall. That is human uature. Your Canadian peo]de 
are naturally somewhat jealous of Americans going in and getting' 
])rivileges. Our pei^ple are, too. Men interested in vessels — some of 
them — think they are better otf as they are noAv. There are others 
engaged in the fishing game — the fishing business — Avho think it 
AAOuld be better for their interests if they could get a greater supply 
of fish coming in here, that they Avould have a better opportunity 
of manufacturing it. But I feel that in one sense it may be that 
you are going to lose sight of Gloucester entirely at the time Avhen 
this thing comes about. Yet I am perfectly Avilling, as far as my 
interests are concerned, small as they are, to draAv a circle right 
around North i^merica and say, "Here let us feed the wdiole con- 
tinent; let us all help feed each other.'"' I don't knoAv hoAv the 
thing Avill AA'ork out betAA^een the tAvo countries, Avhether French and 
Portuguese and other vessels Avill Avunt to come in here and o])erate 
from foreign countries. 

Secretary Redfield. That is not Avithin oui' scope. 

Mr., Marshall. No. As I say, I don't know Iioav far this Avill 
extend in time, Avhether it is to be limited to the tAvo countries. 

Ml'. Found. I Avould like to ask Mr. Marshall on Avhat grounds his 
vessels usually fish — hoAv far they go ? 

Mr. Marshall. They fish around Georges and Middle Bank and 
Quero in the summer time. But in Avintertime my vessels don't go 
far. 

Mr. FouNO. Could you give the names of some of your vessels? 

Mr. INIarshall. The -/. M. Marshall is one I am interested in, the 
Ileiif)/ Mai'shnJh the Amjie Jloi'shalJ, the Mary Pierre', the Flora 
OUrer. I think that is all at ])resent. 

Capt. Carl C. Young, Mr. Marshall, you made a statement that 
we had 100 people OAvning vessels in Gloucester. I don't think. Ave 
have that many. 

Mr. Marshall. Well, Avhen I made that statement I Avas making 
a very brief, general statement. Of course, there are a number of 
little, small boats. There are some boats such as Ave call the 
" ginney '' boats and other small fishing boats. Of course, it is hard 
to give the number AA'ith accuracy. 

Capt. YouxVG. There are about 180 vessels that hail from Glou- 
cester over o tons, and I don't think there are over 50 vessel oAvners 
of those A^essels in Gloucester to-dav. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 203 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOTJGESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Young, suppose you take the larger 
vessels only, and the bankers, so-called, how many vessels have you 
of the larger seagoing type? 

Capt. Young. About 80, perhaps; 80 to 90. 

Secretary Kedfield. And how many owners? 

Capt. Young. I think you will come down to perhaps 10 owners — 
12 owners. 

Secretary Redfield. When you say 10 to V2 owners, do you mean 
10 to 12 parties who operate the vessels? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Operating owners? 

Capt. Young. Yes, sir; operating owners. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, some suggestion has been made here in 
regard to the Gorton-Pew people, who have a large factory here, and 
I would like to hear from Mr. Carroll, the manager of the Gorton- 
Pew Fish Co., of Gloucester, which is, bj^ far, the largest vessel owner 
in the city of Gloucester. They are interested in trawlers, sailing 
vessels, vessels with clitferent motive power, and, I think, Mr. Carroll 
can give you a lot of information. 

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS A. CARROLL, GENERAL MANAGER 
OF THE GORTON-PEW FISHERIES CO., OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. You are geneial manager of the Gorton-Pew 
Fisheries Co. ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretaiy, if you will pardon me, 
1 am not as accustomed to talking as my friend Marshall, but at a 
meeting of the board of trade the other night we discussed this 
matter, and a statement was made there that I would like to repeat 
here, as nearly as I can. It seems to me at this time, when the 
people of Canada and the people of the United States are fighting- 
together in the cause of humanity, we should take a broad view of 
this proposition, regardless of the fact that some people may be 
hurt. I took that stand then, and I still stand by that position. At 
that meeting it was suggested that an arrangement on a fifty-fiftj^ 
basis be made. That was the sense of the meeting, and I maintain 
that it will be the sense of this meeting. I maintain that it will be 
the sense of your discussions in conference and of your decision. 

But the question comes doAvn to this — what is fifty fifty? No fair- 
minded man should complain of a fifty-fifty settlement, but some- 
times opinions differ as to what is fifty fifty. To the best of my 
ability, I am going to tell you what I think fifty fifty is on this 
proposition. 

Some of the people of Gloucester seem to get the idea that this is 
a question of protection as against free trade. If it was a question of 
protection, or duty on fish, I would stand where I have always stood, 
for protection. I believe in protection for American industries, but 
this is not a question of protection. The question is, as I see it, 
whether we are going to assist the Canadians in taking advantage 
of something that was granted in the last Congress, under the Under- 



204 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 

Avoocl Icirilt' bill — luunely, putting' lisli on the free list^ 11' the Chief 
Justice will pardon me, I Avould like to make a little statement in 
regard to that niattei-. I notice that in his statement in Boston and 
here he has spoken about the only fish on the free list being fresh 
and frozen fish. That is not quite true. Salt fish is on the free list, 
too, what we call green fish. In other words, the tariif says that fish 
skinned or boned will carry a duty of three-(]uarters of a cent a 
pound, >Ahich means that all other fish we handle in (irh)ucester is 
free. 

Now, the question comes down in my mind to the schedules you 
have here. In regard to No. 6, taking the last of these six points that 
have been brought up ; first, I woukl say that I know nothing about 
it. I think there are not many people in (jloucester Avho will have 
nuich to say on the k)bster part of the proposition. But the others 
get down to one distinct proposition, in my mind, and that is this: 
On the one side there is the question of permittiug our vessels to go 
into Canada and get a license, however they are propelled, at $1 a 
vessel per year, as against the present modus vivendi license of $1.50 
per ton, and giving Canadian fishing vessels the right to come into 
this market and land their fish Avithout going into their home port 
and taking out a license and becoming traders, as the Chief Justice 
says, with the right to transship fish, and so forth. I think it is a 
fifty-fifty proposition. Thei'e are a lot of men in the room who are 
going to disagree with me on that, I am sure, and they are all good 
friends of mine, and I respect their opinions. But I say to you, 
gentlemen, if (xloucester is to lose its identity, as Mr. Marshall says. 
nobody will feel it as much as the firm I represent. It is true that 
Ave have another interest that the fisherman does not have. We manu- 
facture the fish after Ave get them. But, broadly speaking, there is 
no one Avho Avill feel any change to the detriment of the industry 
here as much as Ave Avill, and there is no one more loyal to Gloucester 
than our people. We Avei-e born and brought up here, and all Ave haA'e 
is here, and it is inconceiAable that any of us Avould stand up in a 
meeting lilce this and advocate anything that Ave thought would in- 
jure this industry. If it floes injure the industry, it is a case of mis- 
taken judgment on our part. 

So nuich for that. I think there are a lot of things that Canada 
should do foi' our vessels that they don't do noAv, and there is one 
thing in particular. If they do accept this ]n'oposition of the license 
they should alloAv our vessels to dress the fish in the harbors of 
Canada. The captains tell me that that is one very impoi'tant thing 
that they should get, that they are forbidden to have uoav, Avithin 
the 3-mile limit. 

Secretary Redfield. Explaiu that. AAon't you, a little more fully 
for our record, Mr. Can oil 'i When avc read this it will be some 
Aveeks hence. 

Mr. Carroll. A vessel might get a school of mackerel. Of course, 
there are men avIio avouIcI ansAver the question, captains b.ere, a great 
deal better than I. I have never been fishing, and am not an expert 
in that line. But the captains are here, and if I state this thin^ 
wrong I would like to have them correct me. A vessel goes doAvn 
there and catches a school of mackerel, and for some reason — stress 



AMERICAN'-CAN'ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 205 

of weather or otherwise — they would like to go into a harbor. The 
mackerel is on deck and ought to be taken care of. They are for- 
bidden to do that now in Canadian harbors, or within the 3-mile 
limit. If they were allowed that privilege, coming from the banks, 
we would at least get that pri^dlege to offset the license. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Would there be any objection to that be- 
cause of throwing over entrails and waste having a pernicious effect 
on the fishing in that locality? 

Mr. Carroll. I think not, because there is very little waste in 
dressing mackerel. 

Chief Justice Hazex. That is something new to us. We have not 
heard about that before. 

Mr. Carroll. It is a very important consideration, as they will 
tell you. 

Mr. Sweet. That is very interesting. 

Dr. Smith. That is important to you, Mr. Carroll? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir ; but not so much as to others. I would like 
to recede a little from the position I took the other night. I would 
not mention this, but it is in your line. The question was asked me 
by ni}' friend, Millett, the other night what I would say if one of our 
steam trawlers was forbidden to fish within the 12-miIe limit of 
Nova Scotia. I said, if Nova Scotia passed a law in the interest of 
the conservation of her shore fishing which forbade our own vessels 
in that area from doing what the Canadian vessels were forbidden 
from doing, we ought to respect the law and not act contrary to it. 
I will now amend that statement, however. I thinl?:, in connection 
with any action whereby either Canada or the United States intends 
to conserve or protect its inshore fisheries outside the 3-mile limit, 
if you can call it so, the Jaw should not be changed with regard to 
any other nation without considering its position first, and letting 
it have something to say about the subject. I will stand on that 
jjroposition. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Well, this is the situation: That it is im- 
possible for us to make a law preventing fishing outside the 3- 
mile limit, except as applied to our own vessels operating from our 
own ports. We could not prevent your vessels, operating from 
American ports ; French vessels ; or vessels of any other nation from 
operating outside the 3-mile limit. 

Mr. Carroll. I understand that, Mr. Chief Justice, but taking the 
case that has been already stated to you, it was our vessel, and while 
the law was clear and while our captain was an intelligent man and 
knew the law, still his position was this: That he wanted certain 
things, and couldn't get the things without signing an agreement 
which in effect was just as strong to him as if it were the law. 

Secretary Redeield. That case, so far as the commission is now 
informed, appears to have been a clear oversight and a mistake. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. 

Secretary Redfleld. And we propose, when we go to the Maritime 
Provinces, to investigate further, and our friends the Canadian com- 
missioners have offered to help us in the matter. If we find the 
facts as they have been stated, assurances have been given that col- 
lectors will be notified so that it will not happen again. 



206 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Carroll. There is another question that has come np and 
been talked about a good deal, upon which I would like to state my 
opinion. Much has been said to the effect that we admitted the 
products of the Canadian vessels here free of duty, whereas Avhen 
our vessels go into Canadian ports they have to pay duty. I don't 
know how it strikes this assemblj^, but I am going to say that I do 
not object to that. I can not consistently oppose that proposition 
and at the same time favor the coming in of the fish. The changing 
of this law which prevents vessels now coming in direct is going 
to mean a great pile of fish coming into this market, and then it is 
proposed that, if we want, we can go down to Canada, if we want 
to sell fish there. As far as that side of it is concerned, as a rule 
the American market is better than the Canadian market, and that 
proposition does not appeal to me. I don't know of any time when a 
vessel of ours has wanted to sell fish in Canada except she has been 
disabled or unable to get to an American port. Under those condi- 
tions she can send her fish in bond. I know there will be a disagree- 
ment on that, but still I think this is the time for plain speech and 
for every man to state his position as he sees it. 

Secretarv Redfield. You export fish to Canada at times, do you 
not? 

Mr. Carroll. Very little. ■ 

Secretary Eedfield. Well, for the purposes of the record I will 
say that there have come into the United States — the entire United 
States — from Canadian ports — much of it might be from lake ports 
or northwestern ports — in the vear 1916, fresh fish other than salmon, 
6,750,259 pounds. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. My firm does not sell any fresh fish to amount 
to anything. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I think probably a large amount of that is 
halibut caught on the western coast. 

Secretary Eedfield. Go on. 

Mr. Carroll. I think I have talked myself out, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Redfield. May I ask a feAv questions? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You deal in prepared fish, entirely? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And has your business — your output in 
pounds — increased largely in the last 10 years? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. And do you find a ready market for your 
output ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it your thought that that market is capa- 
ble of still further expansion? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you familiar with the area of the country 
in which fresh fish is sold? 

Mr. Carroll. Xot as an expert. A fresh fish man would be able 
to answer that question a great deal better. 

Secretary Redfield. Is your market country wide, Mr. Carroll? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You send to the far West and to the South ? 



AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 207 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir; we send codfish to the Pacific coast — are 
sending codfish to San Francisco to-daj^ 

Secretary Eedfield. Why is it that we eat, consume, so small an 
amount of fish in this countr}^, in your judgment f 

Mr. Carroll. I will answer that in my own way, perhaps. 

Secretary Eedfield. Of course, you will. 

Mr. Carroll. It brings up something I want to say. I want to 
pay a tribute to the administration here, if I may be permitted to 
do so. For a great many years the demand for codfish was large, 
and then it dropped out. But for some years now it has been gradu- 
ally increasing. Some 3^ears ago new concerns went at the thing in 
a new way and put the fish up in more attractive forms, and that 
prevented the trade slumping as it might otherwise have done. But 
it didn't increase much until this past year, and I am going to give 
a great deal of credit for that to the Fish Commission, through 
Dr. Smith and his department, advocating and advertising fish. Xo 
doubt a lot of it is clue to economic conditions in the country, the 
high prices of other food products, but, whatever the reason, the in- 
crease of late has been tremendous. The result is now that none 
of us, speaking now for my own firm, have been able to take care of 
it this fall. 

Secretary Redfield. What I want to get at, Mr. Carroll — and 1 
think you are an expert on the matter; doubtless there are others 
here — is whether in our fishing industry in this country we have 
been more or less neglecting a very great opportunity^ which is just 
beginning to open to us, and AA'hether if we take that opportunity 
the problem is not this — and if it is it alters our whole viewpoint — 
Avhether, if we seize the opportunity and take advantage of it, the 
problem is not this : Have we or can we get vessels enough and equip- 
ment enough to meet the demand, regardless of any other question in 
the case ? 

Mr. Carroll. I think that is practically the question now; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You have been kind enough to speak of the 
Avork Dr. Smith has done. It is a great and Avonderful Avork, for 
which he is entitled to very great credit; but, just to refer to Avhat 
Ave Avere speaking of for the last 20 or 25 minutes, the Bureau of 
Fisheries has caused to be put upon the market in excess of 50,000,000 
pounds of entirely new and unused fish foods. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Not one of which tAvo years ago Avas on the 
market at all, and it has done that apart from the other A^ery great 
care Dr. Smith has giA^en to these matters concerning the fish in- 
dustry. Dr. Smith's department has been able to do that, Avith the 
assistance the Doctor has had from his able friend. Dr. Moore, and 
his clerical force, and chiefly Avith the aid of one man, who is knoAvn 
to you, Mr. Douthart, at a cost of $20,000. That process is still 
going on. Much work along that line has been done, Avith a great 
degree of success. For instance, the Avhiting, Avhich up to 10 or 12 
years ago Avas an entirely neglected product, is no av selling in very 
large quantities and is being sent fresh or frozen as far Avest as 
DenA^er, Colo. I presume, too, Ave all knoAv that 15 years ago there 
was no flounder fishing in the United States, and to-day, I think, 
we have to plant a billion flounders a year to keep up Avith it. The 



208 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

work which has been undertaken along these different lines shows 
that there is an enormously great market almost untouched. If we 
bring up our consumption to lialf that of Great Britan by Govern- 
ment aid, I think you can all realize what it would mean. I may say 
that I made an offer in Boston, Avhich is open here, to put a first-class 
man on at Government expense, whose sole duty it shall be to travel 
throughout the Middle and Central States continuously for at least 
six months to preach the gospel of " Eat fish ■' and nothing else. If 
by that means and any other we bring ourselves up to the consump- 
tion per capita of Great Britain, it means that 2,000,000,000 pounds 
more fish has got to be found from somewhere. Is there an equip- 
ment in existence — vessels and equipment — to meet such a demand if 
it were to arise within two or three years ? 
Mr. Carroll. No; positively not. 

Secretary Redfield. In other words, then, if we merely wish to 
create in this countr}^ the condition which Great Britain already 
has, or even if we proposed to raise our fish consumption to the per 
capita rate of Canada, from 18 pounds to 29 pounds apiece, it will 
overstrain the entire fishing facilities of this covmtry. Is it not so ? 
Mr. Carroll. Absolutely. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, are you aware — I think I am not be- 
traying any confidence, Mr. Robertson, when I say this — that there 
is at least a very earnest suggestion in Great Britain that the fish 
consumption there be multiplied by four, bringing it from 58 pounds 
per capita per year to approximately 200 pounds? 

Mr. Robertson. Yes; the movement proposes, as I understand it, 
that the total fish consumption of the United Kingdom shall be 18 
to 20 per cent of the total food consumption. 
Secretary Redfield. And it is now what? 
Mr, Robertson. It is now about 6 per cent, I think. 
Secretary Redfield. That would multiply it bj^ three. 
Mr. Robertson. Yes; and I believe it is capable of achievement. 
Secretary Redfield. That would call upon Great Britain's fish- 
eries to provide an annual supply of 12,000,000,000 pounds of fish, 
six times the product of the American fisheries ; and I have merely 
pointed out to you that it is seriously undertaken and that it has a 
distinct bearing upon the question whether British shipbuilders, for 
example, are going to be occupied in competition with Americans. 

Mr. Carroll. I hope, Mr. Secretary, if I may suggest something, 
that in the campaign which perhaps the Government is attempting 
to carry on in the interest of increasing the fish consumption, they 
do not lose sight of the fact that people should pay at least reason- 
able prices for fish. You can not increase the production of fish 
without the men who man the vessels getting at least reasonable com- 
pensation. They must be paid as well as men in other industries. 
The great trouble has been in this country in years past that people 
have looked upon fish as something cheap, as something to be eaten 
as a penance at certain times; tliat it was something that poor 
people had to have when they couldn't afford to buy meat; That is 
not true in England. The people there pay for fish, and they must 
pay for it here in this country. When they do that, I have no doubt 
that we can attract more men into the fisheries and build more ves- 
sels. The result will be, when you create the demand, if the prices 



AMERICAN-CAN" ADTAN TISHEEIES CONEEEENCE. 209 

are at all reasonable, we Avill tackle the supply, will do our part. It 
can not be clone in a year or two with such an increase as you speak 
of, but it will be clone in time. 

Mr. Sweet. Of course, Mr. Carroll, if a larger cleniancl is created, 
the natural tendency of that would be to keep up the prices ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. Along- that line you see what has hap- 
pened this winter. 

Mr. Sweet. And that would enable the industr}^ to pay proper 
wages ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. I notice that the papers have been knock- 
ing the fish people as having taken advantage of the situation. I 
assure you that they have not. 

Mr. Sweet. Well, if such a demand as referred to is created 
throughout the whole country and people buy fish in large 
quantities, the tendency of that Avill be to raise the prices of fish and 
enable the industry to receive better wages ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. Get out of the minds of ])eople the idea 
that fish is cheap — a thing to be despised. 

Mr. Sweet. You regard the work done by Mr. Smith's depart- 
ment as one of importance, a very commendable work^ 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir ; and we have cooperated with him. 

Dr. SariTH. I know you have, most cordiall}^ 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Marshall said he would prefer to have things 
stay as they are, personally. I would say to Mr. Marshall that 
things don't remain as they are in this world. There are ahvays 
things going on, dangers coming, and we must meet theu.i after the 
war, and meet them like men, solving them to the best of our ability. 

Mr. Sweet. Something has been said about reducing the license 
fee from $1.50 per registered ton to $1 per vessel per year ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sw^EET. If the Canadians should exact that from us, don't 
you think we ought to exact the same thing from them ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. That would be one of the fifty-fifty ideas? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. That was one of the things I had forgotten. 

Mr. Sweet. Let me now ask you. Is there any particular object 
you can see in having that license fee, in having any license fee at 
all in either country? 

Mr. Carroll. That is what I wanted to speak about. I didn't care 
to bring it up in one way, because people might think that we didn't 
want to pay the dollar for the vessel. That isn't it. It is the prin- 
ciple of the thing. Why have that payment of a dolhir at all if the 
thing can be done Avithout for both countries ? 

Mr. Sweet. What I wanted to get at was this: Can you see 
•Any advantage to either country, in the wa^r of keeping a better 
record of the vessels engaged or in any other way, through exacting 
that license fee? 

Mr. Carroll. I can not see any advantage in it at all; no, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. I wanted your views. 

Mr. Carroll. I suppose the idea is to have control. If Canada 
wants to have control, let us have control. I say, summing it all up, 
in the last analysis, we should have the same rights in" Canadian 
519.50—18 14 



210 american-cajstadiax fisheeies conference. 

waters that the Canadian vessels have in our waters, and should give 
the same rights. 

Mr. Sweet, Exactly. Whatever concession is made on one side 
should be made on the other. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. I Avill stand on that principle. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. J. MANUEL MARSHALL, OF 

GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I made a remark, to which Mr. 
Carroll has alluded, in regard to my position in this matter per- 
sonally, and I spoke about Gloucester losing her identity. Now, if 
the purpose, the endeavor, is to enlarge the consumption of fish, I 
hope you will accomplish Avhat you desire. When I spoke of Glouces- 
ter losing her identity, I meant this: I feared that the base of 
operations might be transferred from Gloucester to somewhere else — 
to a Canadian port. You should know, Mr. Chief Justice, that a 
great many people here fear that the base of operations of our fish- 
ing vessels will be transferred from Gloucester to your Canadian 
ports, that there Avill not be the work here for shipbuilders that we , 
have to-day, that there will not be the work for the different artisans 
that we ha^'e now supphdng the vessels. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Why do you fear that ^ 

Mr. Marshall. We do not fear that Gloucester will lose her 
identity as a fish port, for manufacturing, but we do as a fishing port. 
We will still get the stuff from your country, from the Canadian 
waters, and Canadian people will bring it here, and it Avill be manu- 
factured here. But our fishing fleet will gradually become, if I may 
use the word, decimated ; we will not have very much of a fleet here. 

Chief Justice Hazen. W^hy not? 

Mr. Marshall. That is what a great many people apprehend and 
fear; and when I spoke of Gloucester losing lier identity, I did not 
mean that she Avould lose her identity as a fish market, but as a fish- 
ing port, because I think the base of operations of the fishing fleet 
Avill be transferred to those ports which are more convenient and 
hanch^ for operations in and out, in connection with the great supply 
of fish. But, so far as enlarging the consumption of fish and getting 
it to the people is concerned, I think that is a thing we would prob- 
ably all like to see accomplished. 

iSecretary Redfteld. From what locality does the largest supply 
of fish come? 

Mr. Marshall. I think the great supply of fish comes from Ca- 
nadian waters. I don't say it does now, but that is where it will 
come from. Perhaps the figures now, the statistics, will show you 
that more has been brought in adjoining our shores than from down 
in that locality ; but if this plan goes through I imagine, apprehend, 
that the largest part of the supply will be taken from off those 
shores, in those waters, and either shipped directly through Canadian 
ports or brought directly in Canadian vessels and American vessels 
to our ports. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. Mr. Marshall, if you will pardon me, the 
records show that 73 per cent — and this has been the record of 15 



AMERICAI^-CA]SI"ADIAN' FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. 211 

years past, I am told — of the catch hmdecl by the American fishing 
fleet at Boston, Gloucester, and Portland, is taken from the fishing 
grounds lying otf the coast of the United States. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Xow. under the conditions of which we are 
speaking, this greatly enlarged fish demand, what reason is there to 
assume that that condition of affairs which has continued so long 
will change? 

Mr. Marseiall. I think you will have a five to ten times larger fleet 
tonnage operating than you now have, and that they will operate in 
those w^aters. You will get the fish, if you pay the prices. You will 
have the means of getting fish. 

Secretary Redfield. Why operate in different waters? 

Mr. Marshall. The fishing grounds there are more convenient to 
operate in from those ports than here. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Why would they take those fish to Canadian 
ports and leave them there, when the^' can ship them by rail to United 
States ports? 

Mr. Marshall. Well. I feel that they would naturally operate 
there. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Why? 

Mr. Marshall. I think it would be more convenient in every re- 
spect — I mean where they are doing it on a large scale. 

Mr. Sweet. You mean American-owned vessels? 

Mr. Marshall. Amei-ican-owned vessels; yes, sir. I think, if I 
were going to play the game on a large scale, I would do it that way 
nwself. But when you do that I think there will be no disputes of 
any international consequence between Gloucester and Canada affect- 
ing our fisheries. You will never hear much of Gloucester in that 
respect. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Those vessels will be coming to American 
ports with their catches? 

Mr. Marshall. I think so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, why will they operate from Canadian 
ports ? 

Mr, Marshall. I think it will be handier for them, more con- 
venient. 

Mr. Found, Why more convenient, if the American fishing ves- 
sels have the privileges suggested and the liberty of getting their 
fish, anj" supplies they may need, coming, in and transshipping 
their catch, and all those things, in Canadian ports, that Canadian 
vessels would have ? 

Mr. Marshall. Well, it will be a great benefit for them to operate 
down there. 

Mr. Found. Well. I fail to see where the advantage would lie with 
the local man when the market is here. 

Mr. Marshall. I presume it is better to have your base of opera- 
tions close to your fishing grounds where you harvest your fish from. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Maishall. 

At this point I would like to put into the record a statement con- 
cerning the Gloucestei' fleet of over 32 tons, showing f.n ag£"regate 



212 



AMERICAISr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 



of 93 vessels, of which 87 are auxiliary and 56 are sail. This is open 
to the inspection of eA'erybocly and will be made a portion of the 
record. 

(The list of vessels in the Gloucester fleet of over 32 tons, for the 
year 1917, prepared by United States Fisheries Agent Ik-own, of 
Gloncester, and approved by President Fred L. Davis, of the Glouces- 
ter Board of Trade, is as follows:) 



100-110 tons 
90-100 tons. 
80-90 tons . . 
70-80 tons.. 
60-70 tons . . 
50-60 tons.. 

48 tons 

45 tons 

43 tons 

42 tons 

39 tons 

33 tons 

32 tons 

Total 



Vessels. 



93 



Auxili- 
ary. 



Sail. 



STATEMENT BY CAPT. GEOKGE H. PEEPLES, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Fred L. Davis. Mr. Chairman, w^e have a captain of vessels 
here, Mr. George H. Peeples, whom I would like to have address 
you. He has been for awdiile in Newfoundland, and has just 
arrived home. He is in touch wdth what is going on there. 

Capt. Peeples. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, looking at the mat- 
ter from a practical point of view, from the standpoint of an operat- 
ing fleet, I think that a fleet of vessels can operate out of Nova 
Scotia cheaper than they can from here — that is, if you are going to 
allow American vessels to go down there and have free privileges — 
they can operate out of Nova Scotia to-day cheaper thnn the}^ can 
out of Gloucester. 

As far as conservation of food is concerned, I believe, as Mr. Car- 
roll does, that we should do all we can in this critical time to conserve 
and produce food in order to carry on this war. We are fighting 
in a common cause Avith Canada and should put no obstacles what- 
ever in the way of the scientific production of food. 

In my cruise through Newfoundland, in and around the coast, I 
have found that the people of that colony are not doing their part, 
so to speak, in the conservation and the production of food. But 
that is neither here nor there. Of course, here we are speaking of 
Canada. But the people of Newfoundland are not only living under 
prewar conditions, but under a great deal better than prewar condi- 
tions. Their product has increased in the last two years, you might 
say, 100 per cent. Codfish has been selling from $10 to $12.50 a 
quintal. There is no lack of beef, pork, flour, sugar, potatoes, cab- 
bages, butter, lard. They have everything in every port, in abiin- 
dance. There is n© food famine in Newfoundland to-da,y, and families 
there have stored in their houses anywhere from five to nine barrels 
of flour. You can buy sugar anywhere in Newfoundland without 



AMERICAX-CAISrADIAX FISHERIES COXFEREISrCE. 213 

lestriction. About three Aveeks ago I attended a church meeting 
at Si^iingdale. Xotre Dame Bay. and the clergyman read a procla- 
mation of King George V. asking the people to sacrifice and to con- 
servo food, as being a necessary measure to Avin the Avar. They 
treated it there simply as a good joke. So the i)eople of that country 
are living in plenty Avhile Ave are doing all Ave can to conserA'e and 
produce. 

The broader aspects of this question, gentlemen, I am not prepared 
to discuss, as I am simply a fisherman and not a statistician, and I 
haA^e not the figures at hand so that I can discuss the matter intelli- 
gently. But, a^ a Avar measure. I hold up both hands for a i^roposi- 
tion that Avill remove all friction from the production of rood. I 
Avould like to see. as I liaA^e been telling the officials in NeAA'foundlancl 
this year, the fisheries restrictions removed from their statute books, 
as AA'e have removed certain restrictions from our statute books re- 
garding the fisheries. Let Canada take off her restrictive measures 
and let us all get together and produce food. That is the great thing. 
TheA'^ tell us that the Avar is to be Avon through the production and 
conserA-ation of food, and that is AAdiat Ave are AA^orking for. That is 
the one aim, if Ave are to vs'in the Avar, and let us go at it right. Let 
us take otf every restriction and produce food, having in this con- 
nection reference to fish as an article of food. That is my attitude. 

Secretary KEm'iELD. I am interested in Avhat you have said. Cap- 
tain, about vessels operating from Canada more cheaply. Tell us 
Avhy that is so. 

Capt. Peeples. Mr. Secretary, I am not a statistician and I have 
not the figures at my command, but I could get them very easily, 
to shoAv the relative difference in the cost of operation in Canada and 
in the TTnited States. 

Secretary ReufielI'. Where does that difference occur? 

Capt. Peeples. The difference Avould be in the construction of the 
vessels, for one thing. I think no one v^'ill dispute the fact that you 
can produce a Aessel in Canada cheaper than in the United States 
to-day. 

Secretary Eedkield. How about the compensation of creAvs? 

Capt. Peeples. Well, of course, since the Avar started the compen- 
sation of crcAvs has increased very, A^ery much. 

Secretary Eedfield. In Canada ? 

Capt. Peeples. In Canada. I understand they are paying as high 
as $50 a month to men before the mast for over-sea service, and on 
the coast, I think, $45. 

Chief Justice Hazex. In the fishing industry, in addition to pay- 
ing a regular monthly salary, are the men paid a commission on the 
earnings of the vessel? 

Capt. Peeples. The fishermen Avho man the fishing vessels are not 
paid a salary. They fish on shares as Ave do. Their lay is very 
much the same as ours. 

Chief Justice Hazex. We were told in Boston that the men Avere 
paid a certain sum of money as Avages and then, in addition to that, 
Avere paid $7 a thousand. 

Capt. Peeples. That avouIcI be the bounty, Avouldn't it? 

Mr. Carroll. Xo : that Avould apply to the beam traAvlers. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Oh. I understand. 



214 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FiSHElilES CONFERENCE. 

Capt. Peeplks. In regard to bounty, I will say, so far as New- 
foundland is concerned, that Newfoundland pays a bounty of any- 
where from $8 to p20 a ton on ship construction. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Newfoundland has no part in these nego- 
tiations. 

Capt. Peeples. No; but there is fish from there just the same. 
There is a great ship concern, the Havre de (xrace Ship Building Co., 
operated by Christopher Hanneveg, who has been going into the fish- 
ing business with large vessels. They keep fish in cold storage, l)ox 
them up in ice, and ship them to New York. They have a large 
vessel that will carry perhaps 400.000 pounds «f fish, and I under- 
stand that they have been going into the matter with a good deal of 
success. Of course, they operate largely during the months of short- 
age — that is, the months of January and February — and when March 
opens and our vessels bring in large quantities of fish they Avill go 
out, because they think there will be no profit in it. They are simply 
in the thing from the financial standpoint, going into the business 
not to get fish right along, but to get it when the price is large. 

Secretarv liEUFiELn. Your crew is of ^^ hat nationality or nationali- 
ties? 

Capt. Peeples. Portuguese, Scotchmen, Frenchmen. Danes, New- 
foundlanders, and Nova Scotia men. You can not tell at any par- 
ticular time what nationality your crew is. You might have a crew 
consisting perhaps of four or five nationalities to-day, and perhaps 
a week hence an entirely different crew. Put the gi'eater number of 
men I carry are Newfoundlanders. 

Secretary Kedfield. Your vessel has power? 

Capt. Peeples. Auxiliary power. 

Secretary Pedfield. Would it be an advantage to you to enter 
Canadian ports freely? 

Capt. Peeples. Yes; it would. I find in my experience in operat- 
ing an auxiliary vessel on the coast of Nova Scotia that sometimes 
we have been treated very much as you would be treated in this 
country in war times. I went into the port of Halifax this time with 
a trip of fish, going up with a Avesterly gale of wind, and went in for 
shelter, and the}^ tried to exact pilotage in harbor dues. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Y^ou were not obliged to pay. 

Capt. Peeples. I tried to convince the commissioner of pilotage 
of that, but he wouldn't take my word for it, and I had to get a busi- 
ness man to vouch for me. 

Chief Justice PIazen. I suppose that was due to war conditions. 
Plalifax being a closed harbor during the war. 

Capt. Peeples. Yes, sir. We had no trouble going through, but 
he merely tried to collect pilotage. It wasn't according to the 
statute books, because fishermen were exempt he found on consulting- 
the statute books. 

Chief Justice Hazen . I am inclined to think it had something to 
do with the Avar. 

Capt. Peeples. And then he insisted, from the fact that I might be 
in there to purchase sujDplies, that there might be a doubt there, and 
I had to get a business man to vouch for me before I could get a 
clearance at the pilot office. That was necessary in order to clear at 
the customhouse. 



AMEEICAN-CAlvrADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEKElSrCE. 215 

Secretary Redfield. But you didn't pay the pilotage^ 

Capt. Peeples. Xo : because I found a man to identify me, to vouch 
for me. Otherwise I Avould have been detained there over night. 

Mr. Sweet. The whole incident being due to the mistaken point of 
vieAv of an official \ 

Capt. Peeples. Yes. sir. I explained my attitude to him and 
talked to him, as I am expressing it to you here now, that fishing 
regulations should be removed during the period of the war, at 
least. Let us get together and produce food. 

Dr. Smith. You have spoken of the matter of boiu\ties. What is 
your idea of Canadian bounties? 

Capt. Peeples. A bounty is a thing I am more familiar Avith in 
Xewfoundland than in Canada. 

Mr. Found. On fishing vessels? 

Capt. Peeples. Yes. sir ; $50 and over, according to the size of the 
vessel. If you want to build a vessel, start it in a shipyard: the Gov- 
ernment guarantees 7 per cent on your investment and free entr^^ for 
all machinery you install. There are ship plants in Xewfoundland 
operating to-day on those lines. 

CANADIAN BOUNTIES. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I would like to explain what the Canadian 
bounty is, as long as the matter of bounty has been brought up. 
There is no bounty in Canada on the catch of fish, as in France. The 
Canadian bounty dates from about the year 1875 or 1876 — along in 
the 70"s. After the abrogation of the treaty of Washington in 1885, 
claims were made both ways in regard to damages that had been done 
to the English fisheries, and the result was that an arbitration was 
entered into between Great Britain and the United States. 

The result was that the United States paid to Great Britain 
$5,500,000. which was the award of the arbitrators. Of that 
$5,500,000, $1,500,000 went to the Government of Xewfoundland, and 
they took it and used it for the ordinary purposes of the colony. 
Four million dollars came to the Dominion of Canada, and the Par- 
liament of Canada thought it was desirable to set that aside in some 
way for the benefit of the fishermen of the country, as it was an 
award for injury done to the fisheries by the American vessels. That 
money was accordingly funded, and every year since bounties amount- 
ing to -t per cent on that amount have been paid, amounting to 
$160,000, under the provisions of an act declared to be for the bene- 
fit of deep-sea fishermen and the encouragement of fishing vessels. 
It is divided among the vessels and the men doing the inshore 
and deep-sea fishing. Xo vessel can get more than $80. What is 
paid to fishing vessels is $1 a ton up to 80 tons, and then it ceases. 
That is the niaxinunn amount that any vessel can get in one year. 
Each boat gets the sum of $1. at least,' every year. The men work- 
ing on vess'els have got amounts averaging, depending on the men 
engaged, from $5.15 a year up to, I think, $6.50 a year, and the boat 
fishermen have received sums running from about $3.50 up to sonie- 
thing around $5. As a matter of fact, it has not had the effect in- 
tended. The amounts have been very small and have not resulted 
in any encouragement of the industry. Xo vessel owner regards 
$80 as a sufficient sum. So it has not' had the result intended, has 
not encouraged the deep-sea fisheries, has not encouraged the build- 



216 AM KRlGAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONPEEElSrCE. 

in«i- of vossols. and to-thiy tlunv is considerable discussion as to the 
advisal)ili(y of alioiishino' the whole thino- and iisino- the money for 
scientilic work in connection witli I he lislu>ries, or souiediino' of 
the soi't. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT 
GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. D.vvis. Mr. C'hairnian. it would ai)pear from the remarks that 
have been made here that our vessels — .schooners, oi- howe\er pro- 
pelled — on the west coast arc allowed to do what is not allowed on 
the Atlantic coast. For instance, it a])i)ears that a Nova Scotia 
vessel, a proxincial \essel, can not now oo from an Amei'ican [)ort 
to the fishini>- <>-i'ounds without first i>"oiu*>- to its home port, and that 
it can do so on the Pacilic coast. Is that correct? 

Secretary Kkdfikij). Yes'. 

INIr. D.wis. I understaiid that on the west coast Canada "ives 
American boats entries to its harbors free without any license,' and 
that they do not discriminate as to whether they are sailinji;, steam, 
or any other kind of vesseh 

Chief fJustice Hazkx. They ha\e to take out a license, but there 
is no discrimination l)etween sail or steam vessels. 

Secretary llKOFiKLn. The situation that pi-evails on the Pacific 
coast is this, that everythino- there is jnst the reverse of what it 
is here. American \ essels are in\ited, and some of the Seattle people 
think are ahnost couii)elhHl — at least, they so understand it, and we 
are goino- to find out whether their views are rig-ht or not — to enter 
the port of Prince Kuix^rt; whereas, on the other hand, we require 
a Canadian Acssel ))assino- throno-h the inland Avaters to enter the 
]K)rt of Ketchikan, from Avhich port the halibut vessels clear for 
whatcv(>r i)ort they sec fit. and o-o direct to the fishino- o-rounds Avith- 
out nuikiuii' any other port. 1 understand that that has been done 
for a i>'reat many years. 

Mr. Davis. It seems very fnnny that such should be the case, with 
the law on both sides one Avay. 

Secretary RKDriELD. That is one of the reasons Avhy Ave are here. 

Mr. Davis. I Avonld also like to say a Avord at this time in regard to 
Avhiting. The (irloncester people at one time did considerable business 
Avith Avhitino-. but the thing- had an nnsatisfactory Avind-up. ^Vv 
tried to create a sale for the fish, but OAving to change of nauie in 
connection with the food laAv Ave Avere fined in many cases and our 
goods thrown away, and (juite a lot went over to the Kussia Cement 
Co. for glue. So avc have been rather delicate about touching that 
('((unnodity for the last tAVO or three years. There Avas a pretty heavy 
loss, having our goods seized, and fined, Avith the resnlt that we had 
to i)ractically throAv them aAvay. That Avas on account of the name 
that Ave ga\e them, undei' the law. 

Secretary Ivkofiklo. What did you call them'^ 

Mr. 1)A^ is. ()tH>an white fish. 

Secretary Rkufiklu. You should have had the Bureau of Fish- 
eries give them that title, and then you would have been free. They 
have a right to fix the official title, but you proceeded without get- 
ting that authority. 

Mr. Davis. Yes"; 1 sec that they took the "dog" otf and put the 
"grav" on tlu' dogfish. 



AMEEICAN'-CAi^ADIAiS^ FTSJIEETES CONFERElSrCE. 217 

Dr. S^iiTii. You want to cooperate with ns after this. 

Mr. Davis. After Ave g-ot hurt a littk' we were delicate about 
taking the matter np. 

Secretary Eedfteld. Do yon know what tlie sharing system is in 
your port on fishing vessels? 

Mr. Davis. Diffei-ent rates — quarter, fifth, and half lay. 

Secretary Reufield. Describe what you mean by a quarter lay. 

Mr. Davis. The vessel takes 25 per cent of the stock, and from the 
other 75 per cent the expenses of the voyage are paid and the crew 
shares the balance, what is remaining. 

Secretary Redfield. Shares equally? 

Mr. Davis. Shares equally. 

Secretary Redfield. Where do the officers come in ? 

Mr. Davis. An officer gets a certain percentage out of the vessel's 
quarter. 

Secretary Redfield. Is the cook hired? 

Mr. Davis. Xo; the cook in some cases gets a little extra com- 
pensation. 

Mr. Found. The cook is paid by the crew. 

Mr. Davis. Of course some cooks get about $10 a trip or perhaps 
$20 a trip, but that comes out of the trip, out of the stock. 

Secretary Redfield. How are supplies furnished? 

Mr. Davis. By the crew ; buy their own. 

Secretary Redfield. When you speak of a fifth lay, what is the 
difference ? 

Mr. Davis. Practically the same, except that the vessel takes a fifth 
and the creAV finds everything in the grub line. 

vSecretary Redfield. Is it the same with other kinds of lays? 

Mr. Davis. Half lays are different. The vessel takes half and the 
crew the other half. The vessel in that case furnishes the supplies 
and fishing gear. 

Mr. Found. And the deductions from the crew are the same in 
each instance? You have on this side a certain proportiton of the 
percentage of deduction from the crew. 

Mr. Carroll. I presume he means for the gear. That was what 
was fought out last spring in the strike here. 

Ml-. Found. Yes ; that is the gear question. 
Mr. Carroll. That is practically settled now. 

Mr. Found. The captain finds the gear, and the upkeep of the 
gear is in the gross stock. 

Mr. Davis. One thing should be cleared up, and that is that out 
of this quarter that the vessel has the vessel has to pay one-quarter 
of all lost gear. It has to come out of the vessel. The vessel doesn't 
get a clear quarter. Also there are certain port expenses that the 
vessel has to pay and other bills that come in. Last spring we had 
a strike here and changed our law on this. This gear question has 
been quite troublesome in many cases and has detracted from the 
vessel's earning power, because in many cases the}^ lose a good deal 
of gear. I had a vessel the other day where it*^cost $600 or $700 
right out. 

Secretary Redfield. What is the present arrangement since the 
strike was settled ? 

Mr. Davis. That out of the quarter which the vessel is supposed 
to take she has to bear one-quarter of the lost gear. In other words, 



218 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

tho lost gear is taken from the total stock before the division is 
made, and on those divisions, of course, she has to pay one-quarter, 
and that deduction is onerous in many cases. 

Mr. Found. For what reason do they lune a fourth in one \n- 
stance and a fifth in another? 

Mr. Carroll. That is a proposition that goes back a great numy 
years. In the old days, first they changed over from halves to (juar- 
ters, and a large vessel took a quarter of the gross stock. Then they 
started in with small, inexpensive vessels fishing along the shore, not 
costing as nuich as the big ones, and it was nuitually agreed at that 
time in the case of a \essel of that size that the vessel, instead of tak- 
ing 2r) per cent, slioidd take '20 per cent. There is the difference be- 
tween the fifth and fourth lays. But of late years \essels ha\e grown 
large, and the most expensive vessels to-day arc on fifths. Hut ihc 
same divisions obtain as in those days. 

Secretary Kkofteld. Why have a half lay in cei'tain cases? 

Mr. Carroll. That was the original law, the old 50 per cent 
spoken of before. In the old days tliey fitted out a vessel to go fish- 
ing and the owners furnished the vessel and everything necessary 
for a successful voyage. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Furnished the food rations? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir: and the same thing was done in Xo\a 
Scotia. That Avas a pai't of the expense of the voyage. That is so 
to-day on some fishing \essels, and on some others they ex[K'ct extras. 
Some men like to live a little higher tban the owners thought they 
should in the old days, and buy some high-priced canned goods, 
which are considered extras. That comes out of the c-rews. That is 
the only deduction. That is the only part, on tlu' halves, tbat they 
pay for. 

Secretary Redkip^ld. So that these three lays are to-day in vogue? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes — hfths, fourths, and hahes. 

Mr. Davis. Relative to this gear, on the quarter-lay proposition, 
before the strike last year the captain bought and owned the gear, 
and the creAv paid 10 per cent for the use of the gear. Now that is 
changed. The owner of the vessel or the captain has to own his gear 
himself, and he can not charge 10 per cent. So the vessel now has 
added that extra cost of from $1,000 to $-2.()00 or $-2, 500 extra as an 
investment. Avhich before was carried by the crew. I hope, if you are 
making records here, that you will get this in, because it changes the 
matter entirely. 

Secretary Redfield. We are very glad to liaAe your statements. 

The hearing was adjourned at 12.45 o'clock ]). ni. to 2 oV'loclv p. nu 

A FTERNOOX SKSSION . 

The hearing was resumed at 2.10 o'clock p. m.. Secretary Redfield 
presiding. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, VESSEL MANAGER 
GORTON-PEIR FISHERIES CO., GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Rkhfiklo. Capt. Smith, can we get soi\ie information 
from you in regard to this matter? AVhat is your business? 
Capt. S^irni. Producing hsh; managing vessels. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE. 219 

Secretary Redfield. How long liave you been in the business of 
managing- vessels? 

Capt. Smith. Since 1883, 1884, and upwards. 

Secretary Redfield. How many vessels have you under your man- 
agement now i 

Capt. S:mith. About 50. directly. We may have about 25 or 30 
that we own, through captains who manage them, in the Portuguese 
fleet, but they never come to me unless they get into trouble. 

Secretary Redfield. What classes of vessels are these? 

Capt. Smith. Fishing vessels, the ordinary fishing vessels, all 
sizes. 

Secretary Redfield. Are there different types? 

Capt. Smith. Yes. sir; all types. 

SecretaiT Redfield. All kinds of fishing vessels? 

Capt. Smith. All kinds of fishing vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. I want to ask you what, in your judgment, 
would be the effect upon the Gloucester fishing fleet if Canada were 
to suspend her modus vivendi and if it became necessary under those 
circumstances to proceed under the treaty of 1818 ? 

Capt. Smith. I wouldn't want to manage any fleet of vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. Why not? 

Capt. S:\riTH. Oh. we would be up against it. Our shore fisheries 
here would be operated all right, the same as the Portuguese fleets, 
and our seining fleet would operate all right except the cape shore 
fleet. It would handicap us. of course, considerably if we couldn't 
get certain supplies and ship men in the provincial ports. I think 
the same thing would happen that has happened in N^ewfoundland 
in the last feAv years. We all know what has happened in regard 
to the bank fisheries. We know where our banker fleet has gone 
since we were not allowed to ship men and enjoy the privileges of 
Newfoundland the same as we used to years ago. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you wish the commission to understand, 
then, that if we were obliged by the action of the Canadian Govern- 
ment to operate under the onl}^ treaty there now is, the effect would, 
in your judgment, be more or less disastrous to the Gloucester fleet? 

Capt. S3IITII. I do. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you aware that the present condition 
under which we have operated our fleets, our fishing fleets, in this 
country as regards Canada is a temporary condition? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir ; I understand it so. 

Secretary Redfield. One that it is within the lawful power of the 
Canadian Government at any time to stop? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir; I so understand. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you aware that there, are interests in 
Canada which are more or less annually bringing pressure upon 
their Government to stop the present situation ? 

Capt. Smith. Y^es, sir ; I understand that. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, as a business man having interests in 
the fisheries affected by that condition, do you think it sound judg- 
ment to allow that condition to continue if it can be avoided ? 

Capt. Smith. No, sir ; I do not. I would like to see it changed. 

Secretary Redfield. In what respect Avould you like to see it 
changed, Captain ? 



220 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Capt. Smith. I would like to see it so that our vessels can go down 
there and enjoy the privileges that their vessels enjoy. I would like 
to see it so that there is no discrimination between any vessels. For 
several years I have tried to get licenses for the auxiliary vessels, 
and I have tried all kinds of things. I have often got a license for a 
vessel the first year and then installed an engine in it later in the 
vear, and have tried to see if that vessel couldn't carry on the fishing 
it Avas engaged in, the trawl fishing, without going into the Canadian 
ports. That is a strong desire at present. But we had to give up 
the license, of course, right after we installed the engine, and what 
happened to her would happen to any vessel that didn't have a 
license in that kind of fishing. Of course, we can get by on the 
mackerel fishing, and can get by on our shore fisheries, if we can take 
all the supplies Ave need here and go to the near banks, or as far as 
Quero, Avhich they do. But that is carrying on the business on a 
suiall scale, and we ought to carry it on on a broader scale. 

Secretary Beofieli). Is there, in your judgment, a possibility of 
increasing the demand for fish ? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. For food? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

SecretaiT Bi:dfielo. Do you regard the market for fish food in 
the United States as in any degree a saturated market? 

Capt. Smith. No, sir.- 

Secretary Redfield. From your experience, is it or is it not a fact 
that the market for fish in the United States is one that has been 
but partly exploited ? 

Capt. Smith. It has been exploited in a very small way. That is 
my opinion. I think there are great possibilities in the fish business, 
only it requires some large people to take hold of it and make it the 
business that it ought to be. 

Secretary Redfield. What is necessary to be done, in your judg- 
ment, to make it the large business that it ought to be? Well, let 
me leave that for a moment. Have you a proper equipment of 
refrigerator cars for handling fisli? 

Capt. Smith. Xo, sir; I don't knoAv about that. I am not in the 
fresh-fish business, but T know that the fresh-fish people have not the 
facilities for shipping that they have for meats and fruit, although I 
am not interested in that business. 

Secretary Redfiei>d. But I take it that you have dealers in meat in 
Gloucester who receive their fresh meat in refrigerator cars? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Redfield. And the sight of a meat car is a common 
sight in every town, is it not. in every railroad yard ? 

Capt. S:mith. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Redfield. A car built aud designed to carry meat — liaA^e 
you ever seen cars of that character for carrying fish? 

Capt. S^eith. No, sir; I have not. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know anj^body that ever did see one? 

Capt. Smith. No; I don't. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know what means of transporting 
lake fish the Booth Fisheries Co. use from Chicago? 

Capt. Smith. No, sir. 



AMEBICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 221 



creiaiy Kedfield. Whether they have followed the example of 
)ackers, adopting smiilar means for transporting fresh fish? 



Secr( 
the pi , ^ _ 

Capt. Smith. I don't know. I presume they would, because they 
are a large company and can do that in time if they are not doing 
it now. 

Secretary Eedeield. If Canada were Avilling to make arrange- 
ments with the United States whereby the vessels of both countries 
should be, so far as customs and navigation laws are concerned, upon 
an equality, what would you say should be done by the Canadian 
authorities to bring that aljout? 

Capt. Smith. You mean what they would give up to us? 

Secretary Eedfield. Yes. 

Capt. Smith. One of the things that Gloucester would like to have, 
of course, would be free entries into their ports and the same con- 
ditions and the same privileges that their vessels have and enjoy 
more privileges than we do by the modus vivendi now. Take, for 
instance, the mending of nets. " A seiner, for instance, goes down on 
the cape shore and may get a school of mackerel 4 or 5 miles olf and 
may get a seine torn." It would be very nice if it could go into a 
harbor and mend that. It would not be doing any harm to anybody 
if it anchored there and mended the net. They are prohibited now 
from doing that. 

Secretary Kedfield. You mean that a motor vessel is so pro- 
hibited? 

Capt. Smith. No ; a sailing- vessel. 

Secretary Redfield. A sailing vessel is also prohibited? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir; there may be two or three privileges of 
that kind which would be very beneficial to us in certain cases ; that 
is, in cases where a vessel met with an accident it might break up the 
trip. You might have to go home without a full trip, providing she 
wasn't allowed to go in there and buy some little supplies or mend 
the seine or salt the mackerel. I have heard that spoken of several 
times in the last few years ; that it would be very beneficial for us. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there, in your judgment, reason to fear 
that if the vessels of both countries w^ere put on an equality, each in 
the ports of the other, the business of fishing w^ould be as a result 
transferred to the Canadian ports? 

Capt. Smith. I think one of the most serious things is going to be 
the manning of the vessels. I don't know where we are going to 
get the crews. I think it may be that the crews will stay at home 
and go in the Nova Scotia vessels rather than come up here and 
go in our vessels, as they have been doing in the past. Personally, 
I believe that that is one of the greatest drawbacks we are going to 
have, although it may change after the war, getting men to man 
our vessels. We depend on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for a 
lot of men, and if they can do just as well shipping in vessels down 
there as they can by 'coming here, they are apt to stay there, and 
of course that is going to be a drawback to the fishing vessels here, 
getting crews here. On the other hand, there may be plenty. 

Secretary Redfield. The fishing industry, I take it, like every 
other industry, must get men and pay them in competition with 
every other employer of every kind, must it not ? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 



222 AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Secretary Redfielix That does not apply simply to the emph>y- 
iiient of fishermen, but to the employment of all men? 

('apt. Smith. In the last few years the fishei-men have done very 
Avell, and J[ don't believe we will be bothered much in getting men 
as long as present prices obtain. Of course the prices here have 
been very high and exorl)itant prices to pay for fish, although the 
prices in Nova Scotia last year were as high as they were here, and 
in many cases higher. I have lost two or three of our prominent 
captains, who have notified me this year that they were not coming 
up here, that tliey were going to fish out of Lunenburg, and the only 
reason they gave was because they couldn't get crews to come across. 
But they take vessels dowu there and got crews. 

Secretary KKOKiErn. Why do they do that? 

Capt. SMrrii. They can get crews theiv to go with theui, and 
they can not get the crews from Nova Scotia to come over here. I 
presume the reason down there was that the fishermen down there 
did so well last year. They did as well or better than they did 
here. 

Secretary Kkui'ikld. ^^^)uld it come within your department of 
your business to consider the relations of the meat supply of the 
country to the fishing trade? 

Capt. Smith. In what respect? 

Secretary KEOiMELn. As to whether the falling off in the meat 
supply of this country and other countries has been so great as to 
require a lai'ge inci'oase in the amount of fish food eaten? 

Capt. Smith. That is so; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfikld. That is a fact? 

Capt. SiMiTii. I think so; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfieed. In considering tlie (|uestion of after the war. 
do you give any consideration to the length of time it would take 
in a country like (ireat Britain, for example, to restore the balance 
of the meat supply to what it was before the war? 

Capt. Smith. Well, I have an idea that it will take four or five 
3'ears or more under the conditions that exist. 

Secretary Redfieed. Would it surprise you, Capt. Smith, if I told 
you that the meat supply of Great Britain, together with that of 
Continental Europe, has been depleted to such an extent that it 
would take 30 years to restore it to its normal condition? 

Capt. Smith. No, sir; I wouldn't be surprised to hear it. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Robertson, is that a correct statement ? 

Mr. RoiiEirrsoN. I Avould be sorry to make it as a correct statement, 
Mr. Secretary, but it is a very Avell-known fact that the herds fur- 
nishing the meat supply of the whole continent of Europe have 
been killed off to such an extent that it will take a very considerable 
time to replace them, and in the interval the peoples of the world will 
have to dei)end on some other form of nourishment. 

Secretary Rei>fh':ed. Has there ever, to your knowledge, Capt. 
Suiitli, been a c(mdition where the facts surrounding the fishing 
industry have been similar to those Avhich exist to-day? 

Capt. Smith. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you think it is a condition froui which 
we can reason safely from past experience to the future? 



AMEBICAiSr-CAISrADIAIS' FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 223 

Capt. Smith. Oh, I think the demand for fish is going to be 
increasing so that it will be mnch greater than it ever was before, 
now that the Government has taken hold of the thing together 
with Canada and is attempting to speed the business up, produc- 
ing as much fish as is required. Personally, I never saw enough. 

Secretary Redfield. You never saw enough? 

Capt. Smith. No. I might see enough in Gloucester for a few 
months, but I mean, looking ahead for six months or a year. Now, 
with our cold storage, it is different from what it was. I can 
remember times when I saw cargoes of the finest kind of frozen fish 
dumped outside the harbor here. We don't see those conditions now. 
and never will again. Cold storage has taken care of that. 

Mr. Sa\'Eet. Capt. Smith, have you with you or where we can get 
it for our inspection one of those licenses that have been issued by 
the Canadian Go\'ernment under the modus vivendi ? 

Capt. Smith. I thinly: I could: yes. sir. I have one. 

Mr. Sweet. Before we go away, could you let us see one of them? 

Capt. . Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. Oh, you have one? 

Capt. Smith. Yes. [Handing license to commission.] 

Secretary Redfield. I hold in my hand license No. 226. issued 
to the master of the United States fishing vessel Arethusa. This is 
identified by the suj^erintendent of fisheries of Canada as being a 
Canadian license, and it calls for the payment of $160.50 for the an- 
nual license. If there is no objection, a copy of this license will be 
made and inserted in the minutes as a part of the record in this 
case. 

{A. copy of the license referred to will be found at the close of 
C^apt. Smith's statement !225]). 

Dr. Smith. I would like to ask. Capt. Smith, what i)roportion 
of the offshore fishing fleet of Gloucester is now propelled by auxiliarj^ 
poAver and is, therefore, unable to avail itself of the privileges of the 
Canadian ports under the modus vivendi license ? 

Capt. Smith. It would be pretty hard for me to say. I should 
say. perhaps, a quarter. They are installing them fast every day. 
Probably a dozen vessels to-day are having engines installed in 
them that didn't have engines last year. So it is increasing fast. 

Mr. Found. I would merely like to ask one question. I would 
like to ask if Capt. Smith has given any consideration to the gross 
time that would probably be saved, which could then be devoted 
to fishing, by the entire New England fleet if they had available 
to them the port privileges of which he is speaking? Do you 
understand what I mean. Captain? They now have to come up at 
times with a broken trip, and because of other things. What would 
it mean in the aggregate if there was no such loss of time in the extra 
quantity of fish that would be produced i 

Capt. Smith. There is a question in my mind whether there would 
be any loss of time. I think we would lose as much time in our ports 
as we would gain by going in there. One would offset the other. I 
don't think that is any consideration. 

Mr. Found. I don't know as you get my meaning, or what I wanted 
to get at. At the present time the licenses are available for a very 



224 AMERICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES C0NFE±5XCE, 

small portion of the fleet. Now. jjroviding that the i)rivileges cov- 
ered by the licenses, or such other privileges as might ulthnately be 
decided upon, were available so that ^•essels coidd for any purposes 
needed go to port and get right back to the fishing grounds, whether 
in the aggregate of a season's work it would not save considerable 
time to them that could be devoted to fishing? 

Capt. SMrni. I doivt know. I can not see Avhere there would be 
much time saved. 

Mr. Found. Providing a vessel is fishing otf Quero bank or any of 
these fairly eastern banks and meets with bad weather such as would 
make it necessary for her to go to port, if she could go to Canso or 
Lunenburg, and could then go right back to the banks, wouldn't there 
be a good deal of time saved as compared with her having to go 
back to Gloucester and then go to the banks? 
Capt. Smith. It would save the broken trip. 

Mr. FouNn. That is what I was getting at — provided all vessels 
could do that freely at an}'^ time, that conditions would make it 
desirable for them to do it, what in the aggregate Avould it save 
for the fleet, how much fish ? 

Capt. Smith. That would be hard for me to say. 
Mr. Found. That is a very important matter. 

Mr. Sweet. Capt. Smith, Avhen you said " one-quarter," you meant 
that one-quarter of the fishing vessels are propelled by sail and three- 
quarters by other power? 

Capt. Smith. No; I spoke about the offshore fishermen. I Avasn't 
considering the sailers at all; I Avasn't considering the bankers. 
None of the salt fish Grand Bankers have any poAver. I Avas con- 
sidering AAdiat Ave call the offshore haddocker. 

Dr. Smith. My question had reference to all vessels that under 

any circumstances Avould liaA'e occasion to resort to Canadian ports, 

including mackerel A^essels, cape shore salt fishermen, as Avell as fresh. 

Capt. Smith. A lot of our vessels don't have occasion to go to 

Canadian ports. 

Dr. Smith. They fish on the shores of Nova Scotia? 
Capt. Smith. Yes. 
Dr. SiNiiTH. Never eastAvard ? 

Capt. Smith. As far as Quero in the summer time. A good many 
of them take supplies here and go out and back home again. I 
understood you to ask about Avhat proportion of the vessels are 
equipped Avith auxiliary power? 
Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Capt. Smith. I think I am safe in saying 40 per cent; and in 
only a short time it Avill be 50 per cent, because they are installing 
them fast. 

Mr. Saa^eet. When you speak of auxiliary poAver do you include 
steam vessels? 

Capt. Smith. No. 

Mr. Saveet. You mean sailing vessels Avith gasoline to help them? 
Capt. Smitpi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Saveet. Noav. Iioav many are steam A-essels? 
Capt. Smith. AVe have some small boats fishing on the shore here — 
small steamers, converted yachts, and have tAvo beam trawlers, which 
are steam vessels, out here. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 225 

Mr. P'ouND. In the fiscal year 1915-16 the record snys there were 
230 clitferent United States vessels that called at Canadian ports, 
making an aggregate number of 1.G33 calls. 

Secretary Redpield. Seven calls to each vessel. 

Mr. Sweet. Those were sailing vessels'!' 

Mr. Found. All United States fishing vessels. 

(Following is a copy of the license for the Arefhuso, submitted 
by Capt. Smith:) 

CAXADIAX I.KIOXSK lO I'MTKI) STATICS KISITiXO VESSELS (XO. 22(;). 

[Original for issue to vessel. Dominion of Canada. License to United States fisliing 

vessels, 1917.] 

(,"hit<ju Mouiisey, master of tlie Uniled States tisliinji- vessel Ai rlli n.sa. 107 
tons register, of (jHoucester, Mass.. having paid to tlie inidersi.nned. at the port 
of Anilierst. Magdun Island, the sum of .$160..~)U. heing $!'>{) per registered ton. 
I lie pi'ivilege is hereliy granted to said fishing vessel to enter the bays and 
liai-bors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada, for tlie i)urcliase of l)ait. ice. seines, 
lines, and all other snp])]ies and ontfits. the transshipment of catch, and the 
shipping of crews. 

This license sliall continue in force for tlie year 1917 and is issued in pur- 
suance of section H of chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of Canaihi of 1906. 

This license, while conferring the above-mentioned privileges, does not dis- 
pense with a due observance by the holder, or any otlier persons, of the laws 
of Canada, and will become null and void, and forfeited fortliwith. and the 
vessel will become ineligible to olttain a license in future if any of the goods 
or supplies or otliei- advantages obtained heretmder are .sold or transfen-ed to 
any United States tishing vessel that has not obtained a licen.se. 

Vessels propelled by steam, steam auxiliary, oi- by any motive ixiwer other 
than sails, are not eligible for this license. 

Dated this 4th day of May, A. D. 1917. 

<1. .1. Dehhakats, 
D<l)i(t!/ Minister of flic Xfiral ^erricc. 

C. F. Pamelini). 

At the port of Antlier.st. M. I. 

(Appended were harbor master's and customs receipts and clear- 
ance labels and authorities for departure.) 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. ELROY PRIOR, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretaiw Redfield. Gentlemen, the commission would be very 
glad to hear, without calling upon them especially, from anybody 
Avho desires to say anything on the general subject. [Pause.] Is 
Capt. Elroy Prior present? 

Capt. Prior. I am. If you will excuse me, I don't care to have 
anything to sa}'. 

Secretary Redfield. Do yon w^ant to make a statement to us, 
Captain ? 

Capt. Prior. I don't think so. 

Secretar}^ Redfield, You are a practical fisherman, are you not? 

Capt. Prior. I am. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Prior, won't you permit the commis- 
sion to ask you a few questions, please? 

Capt. Prior. I shall try to do my best. 

Secretary Redfield. Angels can do no more than that. 

r)19.'i0— IS 15 



226 AMERICAK-CAXADIAX FISHEMES COl^TFEEENCE. 

Capt. Prior. It is hard to tell what a man can do until he gets 
started. 

Secretai-y Redfield. Is the vessel that you command a vessel with 
auxiliary power? 

Capt. Prior. Yes, sir; she is. 

Secretary Redfield. Would it be an advantage to you in your 
fishing to have free entry into the Canadian ports? 

Capt. Prior. Well, I think it would be, to a certain extent. 

Secretary Redfield. You are aware, are you not, that the present 
privileges granted by license are privileges which, under the existing 
treaty w^ith Great Britain, can at any time be removed? You knoAv 
that to be the fact, do you not ? 

Capt. Prior. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And that, therefore, the present condition is 
on a purely temporary basis, renewed from year to year. You 
know that to be so ? 

Capt. Prior. I understand that. 

Secretary Redfield. Now. for Avhat purposes would you enter 
Canadian ports if you were permitted to do so ? 

Capt. Prior. To get free bait, free privileges. 

Secretary Redfield. Would you find it an advantage to do so under 
the present license law if it were extended to your vessel at the cur- 
i-ent rate of $1.50 per rebistered ton ? 

Capt. Prior. I think so. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, am I correct in understanding that if 
that $1.50 a ton Avere taken away entirely and there was a nominal 
charge of $1 per vessel per year, merely, it would be still more valu- 
able? 

Capt. Prior. Will you inform me what that $1 a year means ; why 
it should be on there? 

Secretary Redfield. I don't know that I can, except that it is 
merely a nominal rate. 

Capt. Prior. Well, does it merely mean that the Canadian Gov- 
ernment wishes to charge us a license? 

Secretary Redfield. I am not sure. Perhaps Chief Justice Hazen 
can tell. I don't know whether that is required by the treaty or not. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It may be necessary in order to maintain the 
integrity of the treaty. Capt. Prior will see that it is no source of 
revenue to us. 

Capt. Prior. Of course, it is not a heavy expense, and will not 
break the owners of the vessels, nor will it make the Canadian Gov- 
ernment rich. 

Secretary Redfield. My own understanding is that it is simply to 
compl}^ Avith a technicality of the treaty. 

Capt. Prior. I suppose so. 

Secretary Redfield. Just as it is customary in this good city and 
elsewhere in selling land to put into the deed " for $1 and other 
good and valuable considerations," which are not expressed. I Avish 
you Avould be kind enough to say. Captain, hoAv you Avould regard a 
return privilege in exchange, let us say, or in part exchange for this 
proposed concession on the part of Canada to us, of granting them 
the right to come direct from the fishing grounds into our ports 
and Adce versa. 



AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN^ FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 227 

Capt. Prior. Well, I suppose it ayouIcI be some benefit to them, of 
course. When we got free salt fish in Gloucester we thought we 
would starve to death inside of two years. I don't believe anybodj^ 
has died of hunger yet. I know I have made more money the last 
two years than ever before, and I guess all the other vessels have done 
prett}^ much the same. So it might turn out to be the same with 
fresh fish, vessels entering and clearing. I understand that is about 
all they want now. 

Secretary Eedfield. That is, in substance, the proposition. Are 
you aware that that very thing has been the practice in American 
ports, that so far from permitting it we have required it in our own 
ports on the west coast ? Has that ever been called to your attention, 
Captain ? 

Capt. Prior. It has. 

Secretary Redfield. And do you happen to know whether under 
those circumstances the American fishery on the Avest coast has 
grown ? 

Capt. Prior. I presume it has. 

Secretary Eedfield. The major part of our halibut supply comes 
from the Pacific coast, does it not, now? 

Capt. Prior. I think it does; yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Capt. Prior, Avere you here this morning 
Avhen Mr. Carroll made a statement about a fifty-fifty basis? 

Capt. Prior. I was. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If Canada Avere to admit all United States 
fishing vessels irrespective of hoAv they are propelled to the privileges 
of Canadian ports, Avith a license at a nominal amount or Avithout a 
license, and in return for that the United States was to allow Ca- 
nadian fishing A'essels to come directl}' from the fishing grounds to 
Boston or to any NeAv England port to dispose of its catch and to 
clear from those ports again directly for the fishing grounds, Avouldn't 
that, in your opinion, be a fifty-fifty basis? 

Capt. Prior. Well, I think it would be pretty near it ; yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. What else would you like Canada to do to 
help out. if Ave wanted to get to a general Avorking, satisfactory, com- 
fortable agreement? If that were supposed to be possible, Avhat 
else would you like to have done. Captain? 

Capt. Prior. I don't see that we are asking for any more than she 
is giAdng now. She is giving everything Ave haA^e asked for, giAdng 
us something Ave tried to get a year or two ago. We tried to get a 
license for motor A'essels, working here a Aveek on it. 

Secretary Eedfield. Let us assume that our friends from Canada — 
and we are sure that this is their attitude from our experience with 
them in connection with this conference — want to Avipe out. if pos- 
sible, all causes of friction and difficulty tliat have existed for so 
many, many years; I think they Avould be sincerely grateful to you 
and others here who Avill say what the things are. Perhaps they ma}^ 
be the little things, perhaps the things that the men on the A^essels 
talk about, that bothers them, but that they don't care to make public. 
NoAv, looking at the matter in that Avay, what else is there that should 
be done to make things perfectly comfortable? 

Capt. Prior. Well, I am sure I could not exactly exphiin it to you 
that I knoAv of at the present time. 



228 AMERICAN-CANADIAN F1SH"EE1ES CONFERENCE, 

Secretary Eedfield. Thank you very much, ('apt. Prior. I am 
•sure yon have helped us very much. Is Capt. Lemuel E. Firth in 
the room? [No response.] Is Mr. Alexander J. C'hisholm here? 

Mr, Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

STATEMENT BY MR. ALEXANDER J. CHISHOLM, FISH PRODUCER, 

GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redkikld. What is your full name? 

Mr. Chisholm. Alexander J.' Chisholm. - 

Secretary Eedfield. And Avhat is your business? 

Mr. Chisholm. Administrator of the estate of John G. Chisholm. 

Secretary Redfip^ld. And what is the business carried on by the 
estate ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Fish producing. 

Secretary Redi^ield. And how many vessels do you operate? 

Mr. Chishol:«. Own control in five. 

Secretary Redfield. And are these motor vessels? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir; three of them are. 

Secretary Redfield. And two are not? 

Mr, Chisholm, Two are not. 

Secretary Redfield. And do the two have Canadian licenses? 

Mr, Chisholm, Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Would you like to have Canadian licenses for 
the other three? 

Mr. Chisholim. Certainly. 

Secretary Redfield. If you could get them you think they would 
be worth paying for at the present rate? 

Mr, Chisholm, Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Why ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Why, w^e would have the privilege of going in 
there and secni'ing men and supplies. 

Secretary Redfield. Would you buy bait there? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Then, do I understand you correctly that if. 
according to the suggestion made by the Canadian commissioners, 
this tax might be removed and a nominal charge of a dollar a year 
substituted for it, that privilege would be still more valuable to you ? 

Mr. Chisholm, Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield, Now. do you consider, as vessel owners, that 
it would be harmful to you if, as part of a general arrangement of 
which the license and the reduced fee was a feature, Canadian ves- 
sels were permitted to come directly from the fishing banks to our 
pirts and go directly from our ports? 

Mr. Chisholm. Of course, there would be more or less competition, 
and it would be more or less harmful to us in Gloucester, of course,^ 
_, Secretary Redfield, Why? -i 

'" -Mr, Chisholm, Wh3^ the men mostly come from Nova Scotia to 
fiian our vessels. They naturally would stay home. They Avould 
rather fish out of their own ports than here, if they could make as 
much money. 

Secretary Redfield. And your idea would be, if I understand it 
correctly, that under those circumstances it would be difficult to man 
jov-v vessels? 



Mr. Chisholm. I think it would be rather more difficult, yes, sir. 
They might not have a fleet perhaps in a year or two years that 
would do it, but they would build up a fleet to do it. 

Secretary Redfield. And your thought would be that the difficulty 
in competition arising from your inability to get men under those 
circumstances might make it hard for you' to continue business? 

Mr. CiiisHOL:\r. Possibly; yes, sir. 

Secretary REmaELD. Are you estimating in that on the business 
continuing about in its present volume? 

Mr. Chishgljm. Why, yes. 

Secretary Redfield. As a matter of fact, however, the business 
has very largely grown in volume, has it not? 

Mr. CHisnoL:M. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And, as a matter of fact, is it not true that 
the tendency of the business is to increase in volume? Is that not so? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. As far as your knowledge goes, Mr. Chis- 
holm. suppose the demand in the United States for fish of all kinds 
such as are caught upon the Atlantic were to increase <me-half. are 
there vessels enough in Canada and the United States to meet the 
demand ? 

Mr. Chisholm. No, sir; I don't think so. 

Secretary Redfield. Do j^ou know of any other source than fish 
by which the shortage of meat in the world can be made good ? 

Mr. Chisholm. No, sir; vegetables, perhaps. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it or is it not the fact that the Government 
has continually urged for some years a greater use of fish food? 

Mr. Chishol:\i. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Have you any idea, Mr. Chisholm, have you 
any knowledge of how the earnings of the Gloucester fleet and the 
Lunenburg fleet compared last year? 

Ml'. Chishol^i. I have not seen any returns of the Lunenburg 
fleet for last year. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You haven't seen the returns, at all ? 

Mr. Chishol^m. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You have no knowledge of what they were? 

Mr. Chisholm. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Well, have you any idea Avhat the com- 
parative earnings of the individual fishermen would be, taking the 
fishermen on a schooner sailing out from Lunenburg and on a 
schooner sailing out from Gloucester? 

Mr. Chisholm. I haven't heard what they were last year. As I 
understand it, they only settle late in the year in Lunenburg, waiting 
until the fish is marketed. 

Chief Justice Hazex. So you would not be able to make any com- 
parison ? 

Mr. Chishol^m. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Now, I want to ask you practically the 
same question that I asked of Capt. Prior. If Canada said to you, 
said to the United States, "We are willing to give you admission 
to our ports so that you will have practically the same privileges in 
our ports along the Atlantic seaboard that vessels flying the British 
flag possess, provided you will arrange so that our vessels — that is. 



230 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Canadian vessels — can go in and out of your ports, go from the 
fishing grounds to your ports direct, clear from your ports to the 
fishing grounds direct," would that be, in your opinion, a fair 
arrangement, an arrangement fair to both countries? 

Mr. Chisholm. On a 50-50 basis? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Yes. 

Mr. Chisholm. Well, I think it would be a little advantage to 
them. They would have the better market for their goods, perhaps, 
in this country. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You think we would have a little the ad- 
vantage in that, do you? 

Mr. Chisholm. I think so. 

Chief Justice Hazen, You think we would have the better mar- 
ket here ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, having regard to the future develop- 
ment of the fish industry in this countr}^, would it be possible, do 
j'^ou think, for j^our fishermen to supply the demand? 

Mr. Chisholm. Well, with a little different method of fishing 
perhaps it might be. I think in 8 or 10 years the increase would be 
almost up to the demand — that is to sa,y, through fishing with beam 
traAvlers, as I expect it will come in a few j^eai's. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You are looking to beam trawlers being 
used more largely in the future than they have been, aren't you? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose you know that in Great Britain 
the supply Avas kept steadier there before the war by the employment 
of beam trawlers? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes. sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. A few years ago there was a decided feel- 
ing of hostility toward the beam trawlers on the part of the people 
of this country, was there not ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It was contended that the beam trawler de- 
stroj^ed the business of the ordinary fisherman, wasn't it? 

Mr. Chisholm. In some places, yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Has that feeling of hostility disappeared 
now ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Well, it has not entirely disappeared. It is a con- 
dition that we know we have to put up with. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You feel that there will be a change in the 
system and that you will have to adapt yourselves to it? 

Mr. Chisholm. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If this development of beam trawlers takes 
place from Canadian ports and American ports it will be necessary, 
to have a convention, will it not, for the regulation of the district 
in which the beam trawlers are? 

Mr. Chisholm. Possibly. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I believe there was a North Sea convention 
between Great Britain, France and other nations, in regard to fish- 
ing in the North Sea, before the breaking out of the war, for the 
patrolling or policing of the district where the fishing was carried 
on, in regard to the sale of liquor and in regard to the rights of the 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 231 

trawlers and their place and location; that each nation for police 
purposes furnished a war vessel whose duty it was to see that those 
regulations were enforced and carried out. Because of the thousands 
of trawlers there, that appeared to be necessary. That would be 
necessar}^ here in the future, wouldn't it, if this beam trawling busi- 
ness becomes general? 

Mr. Chisholm. I couldn't say about that. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It would seem to be a reasonable thing, 
however ? 

Mr. Chisholm. Might be, possibly. 

Mr. Found. There is just one thing I Avould like to get at, in regard 
to which the chief justice asked a question, in another way- Can 
Mr. Chisholm state what would be the fair average earnings of a 
schooner fisherman from Gloucester last 3^ear? 

Mr. Chisholm. You mean the individual fisherman? 

Mr. Found. The fishermen on the different vessels — what would be 
a fair average of their earnings for 1917, for the season of 1917. 

Mr. Chisholm. I don't know that I could say offhand. I could 
make a guess at it, that is all. I haven't any figures other than our 
own. 

Mr. Found. What w^ould be the approximate figure ? 

Mr. Chisholm. I should think the average would be at least $900. 

Mr. Found. Gross? 

Mr. Chisholm. A man, yes. 

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LTJFKIN. 

Congressman Lufkin. ]Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a 
word. I notice that Mr. Chisholm and several other witnesses here 
to-day have given their opinion that if this so-called fifty-fifty 
proposition should be carried into effect they were fearful that it 
might result in difficulty here in obtaining men. I notice that several 
of you gentlemen have asked the reason for that, but I have not ob- 
served that any good reason has been given, and I would like to ask 
Mr. Chisholm, Capt. Smith, and these other witnesses, if the reason 
is not that in certain sections of Nova Scotia fishing is the natural oc- 
cupation of the men, of the people there, whereas fishing here is not 
the natural occupation of the people ; and whereas those people down 
there would rather go fishing than do anything else, in Gloucester 
we would rather do anything else than go fishing ? 

Capt. Smith. If you are referring to the natives, that is so. 

Congressman Lufkin. And the fishermen would prefer to go fish- 
ing from their own ports if they could make- just as much money and 
could be treated just as well? 

Capt. Smith. Yes. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. FRED THOMPSON, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your name and your business, Capt. 
Thompson ? 

Capt. Thompson. Fred Thompson, master mariner. 

Secretary Redfield. How long have you folloAved the occupation. 
Captain ? 



232 AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHEETES CONFERENCE. 

Capt. Thompson. Sixteen years. 

Secretary Redfield. Have yoii operated under a license from Ca- 
nadian ports? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfieed. Paying" for it the usual rate of $1.50 a ton'^ 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Why did you find it advantageous to operate 
under that license, Captain? 

Capt. Thompson. "Well, useful to get our bait in the summer. That 
is the only reason why I have entered. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you buy supplies in Canadian ports? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes. 

Secretary Redfh:ld. And ship men in Canadian ports? 

Capt. TiiOiSipsoN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You have heard the suggestion that that 
])rivilege be granted to all vessels, including those with motor am 
with power, and that the present license fee be canceled or that a 
nouiinal charge of a dollar a year be substituted for it. Would that, 
in your judgment, be a real advantage to yourself and others of your 
craft ? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, offhand, I think it would. 

Secretary Redfield. Would it permit a number of vessels sailing 
from (Trloucester to utilize Canadian ports for the purposes you have 
used them for, whereas now they are excluded? 

Capt. Thompson. It would. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you any objection to putting into the 
record for the use of the commission the statement made by you on 
the 1st of February, 1918. to Mr. Henry F. Brown, stating your out- 
lay in Canadian ports? 

Capt. Thompson. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. That, then, will be made a portion of the 
record. 

(The statement referred to will be found at the close of the wit- 
ness's statement, pp. 236-238.) 

Has it been your experience that you could buy supplies or equip- 
uient more cheaply in Canadian ])orts than you could in American 
])orts? 

Capt. TiioiMpsoN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And have you bought them there for that 
I'eason ? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, I have — certain articles I have. 

Secretary Redfield. Is that true of the equipment of the vessel, 
the working tools of the vessel, the .equipment you use for fishing 
])urposes, as well as food supplies? 
Capt. Tiio^rpsoN. I think so: yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And have you bought such working equip- 
ment there for that reason ? 

C\\pt. Tho.aipson. I have, several times. 

Secretary Redfield. Xow. do you think the suggestion made that 
we allow Canadian vessels io come directly from the banks, here and 
go directl.y from here to the banks, or wherever they wish to go. in 
exchange for this privilege, is a fair proposition ? 
Capt. Thompson. I think it is. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. 233 

Secretary Kedfieij). What else would you like to have Canada 
grant us in addition to what they propose ? 

Capt. Thompson. Well. I have not seriously thought this over. 
There might be other things that I might want to mention. 

Secretary Redpield. Well, the privilege of cleaning fish was sug- 
gested. I think, by one of the captains. Is that a matter which you 
Avould consider? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes; in the harbors, within the 3-mile limit. 

Secretary Redfield. You think that would be an important thing? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, for people in that line of business. That 
is not my line of business. 

Secretary Redfield. But for the people who carry on that line 
of fishing, you think that would be a marked advantage? 

Capt. Thoj^ipson. I think it would: yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And how about the jirivilege to people who 
wish it of mending their nets in Canadian waters: would that be 
an advantage? 

Capt. Thompson. It would. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. A material advantage? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there anything else the commission would 
like to get at? Of course, we on the American end candidly want 
to know if there is something else that should be asked for, that we 
should know about. I am going to ask, when I get to Nova Scotia, 
through the courtes}' of my Canadian friends, questions along that 
line on their side of the account. What else is there, Captain, that 
would make it a real, genuine, fifty-fifty deal, so that you woidd feel 
perfectly comfortable and your men contented on entering Canadian 
ports ? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, I don't know as I could suggest anything. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, Captain, if there is anything you do 
not think of to-day, but think of later, anything of importance that 
occurs to you or anybody that should be included in this discussion, 
I hope you will be good enough to send it to me at Washington, and 
I shall be glad to se^ that it gets to the commission. 

Chief Justice Hazen. This question of permission being granted 
to American fishermen to clean their fish within the 3-mile limit has 
arisen to-day for the first time since our inquiry. I have no knowledge 
on the subject myself, and I am trying to acquire knowledge. I 
Avant to ask you. Captain, as a man who has had a great deal of prac- 
tical ex])erience in the fishing industry, to place yourself for a moment 
in tlie position of a Canadian, and in that position tell me if you see 
any injury that would be done the Canadian fishing interests if Can- 
ada granted that permission to citizens of the United States. 

Capt. Tho:mpson. I don't see that there can be any injury, because 
the Canadians wash their fish inside the 3-mile limits of their harbors, 
and if it would be an injury in our case their own vessels already cause 
the same injury. 

Chief Justice Hazen. AYould it cause any injury to the fish in those 
w-aters to have this fish offal thrown in? 

Capt. Thompson. I don't imagine so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You can not, then, conceive of any injury it 
woidd be to Canadian fishing interests? 



234 AMEKICAN-CANADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

Cupt. Thompson. Absolutelj^ not. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Found calls my attention to the fact that 
you would be in the same position in that respect as Canadian hsher- 
men; that our Canadian fishermen are required to deposit their offal 
on certain areas or on shore, not depositing it in any waters where they 
may happen to be ; and, of course, if you are given rights in our ports 
you will be given exactly the same rights that our Canadian fishermen 
are given in that respect. 

Capt. Thompson. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. In regard to the harbors, there are certain 
harbors in Canada that are under the control of the Federal Govern- 
ment; that is, those harbors that were public liarbors at the time of 
the fedei'ation. There are other harbors not under the control of the 
Federal authorities. For instance, the harbor of St. John is not under 
the control of the Federal authorities. The proprietors of the harbor 
of St. John are the common council of the city of St. John. On the 
other hand, the harbor of Halifax is managed by a harbor master 
appointed by the Federal authorities. So in talking about Canadian 
liarbors there has to be borne in mind that there is different jurisdic- 
tion and different coiitrol. In the harbor of St. John, for instance, 
whether the vessels were Canadian or whatever they might be, they 
would be subject to the control of the local authorities and not the 
Federal authorities. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask the captain one more (|ues- 
tion : Of what nationality are the men who form your crews? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, mostly Canadians. 

Secretary Redeield. Any Portuguese? 

Capt. Thompson. No. I hardly every carry any Portuguese. 

Secretary Redfield. To your knowledge, are there Portuguese 
who sail out of Gloucester in vessels of one kind or another in the 
fishing trade? 

Capt. TiioixrpsoN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Any other nationalities except Canadians 
and Portuguese that form parts of the crews here ? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir; all nationalities here except Jews. I 
don't know of any Jew that goes fishing. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, the question I wanted to ask you was 
this : If it should become so advantageous for the residents of Nova 
Scotia to sail upon their own vessels that they would not come here to 
man Gloucester boats, is it possible to get other men — Portuguese, 
for example — and other men for vessels here? 

Capt. Thompson. Well, it depends upon the immigration laws; 
might have to change the immigration laws. 

Secretary Redfield. But if the immigration laws Avere so modified 
by authority of the Secretary of Labor as to permit them to come, 
are there or are there not other soiu'ces upon which you could draw ? 

Capt. Thompson. I think there are; yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it your experience that the men of these 
other countries who can be thus obtained are good fishermen, good 
seamen ? 

Capt. Thompson. They are recognized as good seamen. 

Secretary Redfield. They are so recognized here? 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFEEENCE. 235 

Secretary Redfield. So it is not the fact, is it, that you are de- 
pendent upon Canada for the sole supply of men ? 

Capt. Thompson. Not absolutely ; no, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has any effort, any definite, concerted effort, 
been made in Gloucester to obtain American men within the last five 
years ? 

Capt. Thompson. I don't think so ; no, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Do you know from what locality the United 
States Navy draws the largest part of its men ? 

Capt. Thompson. I don't know exactly the locality, sir; but I 
know the}^ are all American citizens. 

Secretarv Eedfield. Have you been told that the United States 
Navy draws the largest part of its seamen from the Mississippi 
Valley? 

Capt. Thojmpson. I haven't understood that; no, sir. 

Secretarv Eedfield. And that they have formed a training school 
for the purpose of instructing young men from the interior States 
for naval service? 

Capt. Thompson. No, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Has anything ever been attempted by the 
fishing interests of Gloucester loolring toward the formation of a 
native body of men to man their ships ? 

Capt. Thompson. No, sir; not to m}'- knowledge. 

Secretai-y Eedfield. If the fishing business grows to the extent 
that it has been testified to the commission is possible, in order to 
make up for the greatly lowered meat suppl}^ of the country, and if 
the prices of fish are well maintained through a period of years, is 
the occupation one that could be, in your judgment as a mariner, 
made attractive to the right Idnd of American bo}^ ? 

Capt. Thoimpson. I think so. 

Secretary Eedfield. Would you favor as a mariner steps being 
taken by the fishing interests or by the country looldng toward the 
training of American boys for that work? 

Capt. Thompson. I would. 

Secretary Eedfield. Would it be correct to say that you were de- 
pendent upon Canada for a supply of men until after that experi- 
ment has been tried and has failed? 

Capt. Thompson. No, sir. 

Secretaiy Eedfield. It would not, Avould it ? And, to your knoAvl- 
edge, the experiment has never been tried. 

Capt. Thompson. Has never been tried. 

Dr. Smith. Captain, I would like to ask you just one question. 
What countries did you have in mind when you said there were 
other countries upon which you might draw for your crews for your 
fishing vessel ? 

Capt. Thompson. I had in mind Portugal. 

Dr. Smith. But you had already mentioned the Portuguese and 
Canadians. AVhat other countries? 

Capt. Thompson. Used to have Scandinavians come here. 

Dr. Smith. Are they excluded now by the immigration laws ? 

Capt. Thompson. I don't think they are excluded. I don't think 
the law covers Scandinavians. 



236 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FlSli KHlh^S CONFEKENCE. 



Secretary Redfield. Wxi are a ScandinaNian. y(»iirs(>H7 

Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ForNi). Do you inind telliii«>' the eoniinissioii what the axeraiie 
earnings of the fishermen on your vessels were in 1017^ 

Capt. Thompson. "Well. T didn't com])lete the whole season this 
year myself, but the earninii's weiv larae, as I understand. I think 
they reached in the neiohborhood of between $l.oO{) and $'2.0()(). That 
is simply a g-uess. 1 (k)n"t think it would uo uuich better thau that, 
but somewhere in that neiiihborhood. 

Dr. S^Mirii. How does that compare with years l)et"ore the jn-esent 
industrial situation developed, when there is such a marked (lemand 
for fish of all kinds and prices ha\e ruled high ^ How would the 
earninos in 1017 comi)are with those in 1913. say? 

Capt. Tho:mpsox. Oh, wouldn't be any comparison. This past 
year would double 1913. 

The followino- information regardino- the expenses of tishiuo; \es- 
sels Avas submitted to the conference durino- the course of the 
hearing. 

<!i.orcKs'i-Kii, Fcbnianj I. Z.''/N. 
Mr. HiONKv l\ Ki;()\vN. 

Dkai! Sii;: Money exjicuded by luc lor hail, elr., on lour (UH'creiU lishin.i;' 
trip.>«. year 1V)]7. in Nova Scotia, parts of wliifli I liave record of. is given lielow. 
as follows: Bait. .$1.U44.SU; uroceries. .i;i2o..")0: ice. .$S().7r) ; tishliooks. $2:>r) ; 
total. .*1,490.0.1. 

lies])ectfully. y(nirs. 

Finci) 'rno.McsoiN. 



{li.orcKSTKi; ^Iass.. .IdiiiKirii .?.''. t!>IS. 
Mv. Hkxuy 1"\ Ukown. Cilji. 

Deai! SiK : The Esjicniiilo is the only vessel \vc had last year with a Cana- 
dian license. As far as T can see we spent about .$800 for bait, icv .$800. fiMxl 
.$800. fishin.ii- apparatus SIOO. and other sni>itlics about $'_'0(t. 
Yours, truly. 

W'll.l.lAM II. .loiaiAN ( 'o.. 
<>i:i..\M)() .Mkiuiiani'. 'I'rrdxin-cr. 



KxrK.NDirruKs i\ (-anaiua.x pouts loi; riiK caikxdai: yk.vi; iimt. 

List of /■c.v.s-c/.v from (' inniiiHilKnii d- 'riioiii itsoii bnincli of drotoii-l'cir 

Fisheries Co. 



Schooner, 


l.icensp. 


I?ait. 


Supptie.s. 


rort 
charges. 


Total. 




.«142.50 
Ifil.OO 
157.50 , 
138.00 
144.00 
122.50 1 
139.50 


S(i07. 57 
915.80 

1,359.40 
527. 50 
784. 40 

1,047.08 
429.00 


$838. 56 

592. 95 

1,447.28 

208.35 

304. OS 

284. 53 

1,425.62 

115.24 

12.70 

13. 95 

57. 62 

1.50 


S9.00 
5.75 

15.75 
6.25 
5. 50 
7.85 

28.35 
9.70 
4.95 
5.50 
4.00 
2.00 


$1,597.63 


Arethusa 

Ingomar 

T. S. Gorton 


1.675.50 

2,979.93 

SSO. 10 




1 , 2;?7. 98 


Rhodora 


1,401.96 
2,022.47 




124.94 


Arkona 






17.65 








19. 45 


H.B.Thomas 






61.62 




1 




3.50 




1 






Total 


1,005.00 


5, 670. 75 


5,302.38 


104. 60 


12,082.73 



AMERICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES CONEEBENCE. 

dortoii-l'cir Fialicrif'H (Jo. ■ 



237 



Schooner Athlete $1. 800 

Schooner Catherine Burke 2. 000 

Schooner Elsie 2.000 

Schooner J. J. Fallon 900 

Schooner Gov. Fos.s 3, 700 

Schooner Georgianna 1. 500 

Schooner E. E. Gray 1,000 

Schooner Mystery 1, 500 

Schooner .James W. Parker 4. 000 

These ti,iiui-es are approximate. 



Schooner Fannie A. I^rescott $1, 100 

Schooner Repuhlic 1, 300 

Schooner Mildred Robinson .500 

Schooner Romance 4,000 

Schooner Smuggler 2, 000 

Schooner W. L. Stream 400 



27, 700 



■lohii CliisJioliii i(- Son. ScIkk/iicis Rolxrt diid RichdnJ. — I'ald out in Xora Srotia 

portfi. 19 n. 



License. Liverpool $137. 75 

Towing 8.00 

Potatoes 8.00 

Ice 70.00 

Bait — 221.00 

Eggs, etc 14. 00 

Towing 10. 00 



Bait .$286.00 

Ice 60.00 

Bait 355.90 

Tea. etc 7. 20 



Total 1.174.85 



Sclioonrr A. Piatt Andreir-s. — Paid out in Nova Scotia ports, 1917. 



License .$138. 00 

Towing 5. 00 

Bait 248.00 

Flour, etc 16. 00 

Water ,3. 50 



Ice .$67. 50 

Potatoes 7. 73 



Total 485. 73 



OnliiHiri/ Hcininn t li j) on linlf la j/. 

Gross stock .$2, 860. 00 

Stock charge 370. 00 



2)2,490.00 



Vessel share 1, 245. 00 

Men's share 1. 24.5. 00 

( 'rew's expenses, of their half 145. 00 



20)1, 100. 00 (.55. 00 



1, 000. 00 
1. 000. 00 



Share, $55.00. 

Gross expenses : 

Gas and oil .$250.00 

Ice : 45. 00 

75. 00 



Barrels, if used 



370. 00 
Crew's expenses : 

Extra grub 100. 00 

Cook's wages . 21. 00 

Hoisting engine 19. 00 

Purser : 5.00 



145. 00 



On a base of 19 men on an average trip of three weeks. 
One share for gas engine. 



238 AMERICAN-CANADIAiSr FISHERIES COISTFEEENCE. 

OrfJiudrii frip fresh jiHhm<i nf lira ircckx' (liirdtioii, I'.lll. 

Gross stock $2,850.00 

Stock cliarse 56. 00 

2, 794. 00 
698. 50 

2, 095. 50 
Expenses for trip 883. 00 

23) 1,212.50 

Men's share .52. 76^ 

Crew's expense : 

Bait, 6.000 pounds 280. 00 

Ice, 15 tons 45. 00 

Grocery bill 300. 00 

Cook 25.00 

Hoistinsi' engine 20. 00 

Water I__ 3. 00 

Gas if used 200.00 

883. 00 
Suhniitted l).v Capt. Ciirl C. Yoiui.u'. 

Secretary Redfield. I wish it were possible for us to have a first- 
class packing-house man in the meat business here to make it clear to 
you gentlemen how completely the conditions of the food supply of 
the country have altered since 1913, and how many years there must 
be of comparative avoidance of meat food in the future before Ave 
get back to the conditions of 1913. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. LEMUEL E. SPINNEY, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Spinney, give us your full name and 
business. 

Capt. Spinney. Captain and OAvner: OAvner in a small number of 
vessels noAv, six or seven. 

Secretary Redfield. You have been captain of ah American steam 
traAvler ? 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And haA^e recently been made captain of a 
Canadian trawler? 

Capt. Spinney. Not yet. but I intend to go next Aveek as captain, 
to take charge of a boat. 

Secretary Redfield. Do a^ou regai'd the privilege of entering Ca- 
nadian ports on the payment of a dollar a year per A^essel as desirable? 

Capt. Spinney. I do, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you taken advantage of the present 
licenses yourself? 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; most every year have a license. 

Secretary Redfield. You didn't get that license for fun, did you, 
Captain ? 

Capt. Spinney. No, sir; but because I needed it; couldn't get 
along without it. 



AMEBICAX-CAjSTADIAX fishekies confeeence. 239 

Secretary Redfield. And do you regard the privilege of extending 
that license to motor vessels as a valuable one? 

Capt. Spixney. I do, sir. 

Secretar}' Redfield. Does it make it more or less valuable if in ad- 
dition the rate is changed from $1.50 per registered ton to a dollar 
per year per vessel? 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; I never considered the $1.50 per ton; 
simply had to have the license. That is all. If it had cost twice as 
much I would have bought it. 

Secretary Redfield. Captain. I wish you Avould tell the commission 
just how you feel about this matter of allowing Canadian vessels to 
come directly from the fishing grounds into our ports and go directly 
there from our ports, whether it is wise or unwise, hurtful or helpful ? 

Capt. Spinney. I think it is wise. My opinion is that if we don't 
come across now we Avon't get a chance here again. The Canadian 
people are making this offer, and I think we should accept it. I 
consider that Avhen we have salt fish coming in free and and fresh 
fish coming in. that the Canadian boats coming in will make very 
little difference. The people I am going for, I understand, want all 
the fish that can be obtained, all that is coining, and would take 
more. They are very nuich in need of a supply of fish. This boat 
I am going on has been under charter two years by the Canadian 
Government, and they have got a release and want me to go on the 
boat, and I am going this coming season. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know Avhat arrangements you are go- 
ing to make about the employment of your crew? 

Capt. Spinney. I guess I can pick up a crew between here and 
Nova Scotia, somewhere. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you going to pay them a great deal more 
than you pay men out of Gloucester? 

Capt. Spinney. No; won't pay more. The wages there are much 
the same as here — the regular wages there. There is a difference 
outside of the regular wages of $10 a month. The}^ pay there $30 
a month and $7 on 1.000 stock, and pay here $40 a month and S^T 
on 1,000 stock. 

Secretary Redfield. But the officers on the Canadian vessels are 
paid more than the officers on the American vessels. 

V apt. Spinney. I understand so. 

Secretary Redfield. How does it come out in the total? Does it 
cost more or less in wages to run a Canadian vessel or an American 
vessel ? 

Capt. Spinney. I shouldn't think the cost would be very dif- 
ferent, because, I understand, they are j^aying somewhere between 
$7 and $8 a ton for coal in Halifax, so I should think the operation 
of a Canadian vessel and one of our fishermen would be very little 
different. It used to be that you could go into Canadian ports and 
pay considerably less for potatoes and vegetables, but now you 
have to pay there what you do here, I understand. There might be 
a little difference in flour, but sugar is about the same as it is here. 

Secretary Redfield. I understand you to say that your owners, or 
the people behind you, want all the fish they can get? 

Capt. Spinney. That is what they have told me. The Leonard 
people, who own the boat I am going on. have their headquarters in 



240 american-canadiajst fisheries conference. 

Montretil. I was u]j in Montreal the other day. and they tokl nie they 
had orders for 2,000.000,000 pounds of fish, if they conld get them, 
and they said, '' For goodness" sake, get the hoat going- as quick as 
you can." 

Secretary Redfield. Has it evei- been Ijrought to your attention 
that the Canadian people eat very much more fish per man, per 
capita, than the people in this country? 

Capt. Spinney. I have heard so. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you ever wondered Avhy that was? 

Capt. Spinney. I never knew the reason Avhy. 

Secretary Redfield. You regard fish as good to eat ? 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; very nice to eat. 

Secretary Rp^dfield. Doesn't it seem very strange to you that the 
American people should be the smallest fish eaters among the great 
nations? 

Capt. Spinnev. It nevei' occun-ed to me why that was so. 

Secretary Redfield. Don't you think that if the business were 
dealt with as the Chicago packers deal with the meat business the 
demand would increase constantly and very largely? 

Capt. Spinney. Certainly. 

Secretary Redfield. Don't you think it would be advantageous for 
the people of Boston and of Gloucester — those engaged in the in- 
dustry — if the demand for fish increased very largely ? 

Capt. Spinney. I think so. 

Secretary Redfield. Has your attention ever been called to the 
fact that the meat supply of the country has been very largely 
reduced ? 

Capt. Spinney. I understand that it has. 

Secretary Redfield. I wonder if anybody in your family has been 
trying recently to buy beef steak? 

Capt. Spinney. Well, I know the prices, all right. 

Secretary Redfield. Under the circumstances you have described 
and under any circumstances you know of, do you see any harm that 
would be done to the American people by having Canadian vessels 
bring their nsh directly in here from the banks ? 

Capt. Spinney. I think it would be beneficial. That is my candid 
opinion. 

Secretary Redfield. I suppose we must think. Captain, must we 
not, that the people of the interior are interested in this thing as 
much as the people of Gloucester? 

Capt. Spinney. I suppose so. 

Secretary Redfield. They are the fellows who eat the fish? 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. And what we are after is the largest amount 
of fish we can get. of any kind. 

Mr. Sweet. Captain, do you think it would be an injury to the 
])eople of Gloucester to have vessels owned bj'^ Canadians clear 
directly for the fishing grounds and come back direct ? Do you think 
that would be any injury to Gloucester? 

Capt. Spinney. I think it would be a great benefit to the people of 
Gloucester. They depend mostly on the fish business, packing busi- 
ness, and if they don't come right in from the grounds thev will come 



AMERICAN-CANADIAl^ FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 241 

just the same, the overpkis of Nova Scotia. So I don't think there 
would be any difference in that respect, and it would be a benefit to 
the town. 

Mr. Sweet. Taking the answer you gave to Secretary Redfield 
and the answer you have just given to me, then, taking the two com- 
bined, you practically say you think it would be advantageous to 
make this change permitting Canadian vessels to come here, clear 
directly for the fishing banks, and then come back without going to 
a Canadian port? You think that would be advantageous to the 
people of Gloucester and also to the people of the United States living 
farther inland? 

Capt. Spinney. I think it Avould be advantageous ; jes. 

Mr. Sweet. To all? ^ " . ., ,. 

Capt. Spinney. To all. 

Dr. Smith. I would ask the captain if he is an American citizen ■" 

Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; I am a naturalized American citizen,. 
Canadian born; born in Yarmouth and naturalized in Massachusetts. 

Dr. Smith. Did you have to change your nationality to become a 
captain of this Canadian trawler? 

Capt. Spinney. I did not. Things are pretty easy just now, you 
know. 

STATEMENT BY ME. FRANK E. DAVIS, OF FRANK E. DAVIS CQ., 
GLOUCESTER, DISTRIBUTERS OF FISH. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your business? 

Mr. Davis. In the mail-order fish business. I don't produce fish 
and I haven't any vessels. 

Secretary Redfield. You sell prepared fish entirely, do you? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Only prepared fish? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Where do you sell it ? 

Mr. Davis. All over the United States, and once in a Avhile it gets 
outside the country. 

Secretary Redfield. Yo"u say it gets outside the country. Where 
does it go? 

Mr. I) a VIS. I have sent some to the western Canadian Provinces 
and some to Mexico; I have sent some to England, some to Germany, 
and some to France, but very seldom; have sent to the people over 
theFe who want the fish. 

Secretary Redfield. I trust that you are not selling any fish to 
Germany at present? 

Mr. Davis. Not if I can help myself. 

Secretary Redfield. How long have vou been doing this, Mr. 
Davis? ■ ^ . .^ , 

Mr. Davis. About 32 years. 

Secretary Redfield. Has your business been developed all over the 
country and abroad in this way 3^ou speak of? 

Mr. Davis. The mail-order and correspondence business, you 
might say, and advertising in the papers, etc. 

Secretary Redfield. I am told at times your shipments are quite 
numerous, that there are occasions when you may send out as many 
as or more than 1,000 packages a day. Is that so? 

519.50—18 16 



242 AMEETCAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERElSrCB. 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Kedfield. What I Avant to ask you is, whether, hayinti^ 
had this experience oyer a period of time, with an opportunity to 
test the question whether there is a growing- market for American 
fish from (Tk)iicester. in your judgment the fish business is one 
which is capable of hirge expansion? 

Mr. Dams. I think it is. I don't think we are connnencing to 
sell what there is an opportunity in the country to sell. 

Secretary Redfield. I wonder if the gentlemen in the rear can 
hear that. He says he does not think we are commencing to sell 
what we are able to sell. Is that correct, Mr. Dayis? 

Mr. DAyis. It is. 

Secretary Redfield. Haye you been familiar with the work that 
the Bureau of Fisheries has done in placing on the market unused 
fish foods? 

Mr. Davis. Xot veiy much. 

Secretary Redfield. Did you know that practically Avith the work 
of one man over a period of two years, backed by the office force, 
of course, and with some literature, it has been found possible to 
place upon the market something in excess of 50,000.000 j:)ounds of 
fish food that two years ago was not used at all ? 

Mr. Davis. I have heard much on increase in consumption of foi- 
uierly unused fish. 

Secretary Redeield. Have the facts in connection with the adop- 
tion of whale meat for food been brought to your attention ? 

Mr. Davis. They have not. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you been informed that there are a 
number of sea-going steamers engaged in that business now on the 
Pacific? 

Mr. Davis. I have seen it in the papers; that is all. 

Secretary Redfield. And that there is a larger demand for the 
product than the}' are now able to supply ? 

Mr. Davis. AVell, I understood that it was increasing; that tliey 
could dispose of all they could get. 

Secretary Redfield. Why do you suppose there is this country- 
wide demand for fish and for products like whale meat, so that it be- 
comes possible to take these previously unused products and place 
them extensively, at small expense ? What do you think are the con- 
ditions that make that possible? 

Mr. Davis. I think one part of it has been the educational adver- 
tising the Government has done, and also the shortage of nteat. and 
also the fact that people are being educated to the advantages of 
fish. I think that is growing pretty rapidly. 

Secretary Redfield. And likely to continue so to do? 

Mr. Davis. I can not see why it Avill not be one of the great indus- 
tries of the country. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, as one familiar with the business at 
large, do you know of facilities existing either in the United States 
or Canada, or both together, which would be able to supply the de- 
mand if the consumption of fish in this counti-y rose to the relative 
rate at which it is consumed in Canada ? 

Mr. Davis. Well, I know it is almost impossible to get fish enough 
to supply the demand. I know that I can not get half the codfish that 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAISr FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. 243 

I want, trying in this country and others. There are so many after it 
that it is almost impossible to buy any first-class codfish. Prices have 
increased and are increasing every day. 

Secretary Redfield. So that the condition, as I understand you-to 
])ut it, is that of an increasing demand and an insufficient supply? 

Mr. Davis. That is the way I look at it ; yes, sir. The demand is 
increasing pretty fast with us, and I think with all the fishing in- 
dustry it is increasing, and we are not getting fish enough. I don't 
see how we are going to get it in the future. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Davis, have you ever been informed as to 
the extent of the fishing fleet, the trawler fleet, of Great Britain? 

Mr. Davis. I know they have spoken about it at different places, 
that it was mentioned, and it was said that what they were getting 
was away ahead of what we were getting here. 

Secretary Redheld. Do you know how many thousand steam 
trawlers Great Britain has. or had. at the beginniug of the war? 

Mr. Davis. I do not. 

Secretary IvedfU'^ld. Has it been called to your attention that the 
single port of (jrimsby sent out a thousand or more steam trawlers? 

Mr. Davis. I knoAv there is a very large number, but I don't know 
the figures. 

Secretary Kedheld. The reason why I have brought that to your 
attention is to see if I can not get this problem before the coumiission 
and the gentlemen present. Great Britain, we are informed, having 
been obliged in common with all Europe to kill off its cattle for food, 
finds itself in a condition where the only available way to get a suffi- 
cient supply of protein from food is to get it from fish. Before the 
war their consumption of fish Avas at the rate of 58 pounds per per- 
son, as compared with 18 pounds per person in this country. On that 
basis, thev used about -t.OOO.OOO.OOO pounds of fish a vear for a popu- 
lation of "45,000,000. as compared with a use of 2,000,000,000 pounds 
a year by us, with a population of 100,000,000. They are now find- 
ing it necessary to very greatly increase that supply of fish food. 
The supply they have had is not sufficient. lender the circinnstances, 
their fishing equipment, depleted by the war, is nothing like sufficient 
for their own needs, and even if restored to the prewar state it would 
still be insufficient for their oAvn needs. Under those conditions, 
Avhich I think are Avidely known throughout the world, is there any 
reason, in your judgment as a business men, to doubt that the Ameri- 
can fishing business, with an increasing demand and an insufficient 
supply, is established upon a permanent basis ? 

Mr. Davis. Well, I think that they have got to build more A'essels 
in both countries. The only Avay to supply the demand is to produce 
more fish. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. PETER GRANT, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Grant, Avhat is your name and your 
business ? 

Capt. Grais't. Peter Grant. I am at present engaged in a sail loft, 
-repairing sails. 

Secretaiy Redfield. You have been a fishennan? 

Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. 



244 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Secretary Redfield. Have been in command of a vessel? 

Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. 

^ecretar}^ REonELD. For some _years^ 

Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you had a Canadian license? 

Capt. Grant. No, sir; never had occasion to use it. 

Secretary Redfield. Why was that ? 

Capt. Grant. Because we didn't fish in that part of the country. 

Secretary Redfield. You didn't go where it was needed ? 

Capt. Grant. Didn't 2,0 where it was needed. 

Secretary Redfield. From your viewpoint, Captain, would the 
proposed arrangement Avhich I think you nuist have heard us de- 
scribe, whereby Canadian vessels woulct be allowed to come into our 
ports with their catches direct from the fishing grounds and go direct 
there from here or from our other ports, together Avith an arrange- 
ment whereb}^ licenses would be granted to all classes, including motor 
and power vessels, at a nominal rate of a dollar per vessel per year, 
be a square deal ? 

Capt. Grant. I should think it a square deal if you make it a 
dollar on both sides. I don't think it would be fair for us to pay 
them a dollar and Ave get nothing. 

Secretary Redfield. That is a credit to your sense of fair play, of 
course. 

Capt. Grant. I think, in my opinion, that the American people are 
smart enough to compete with Canada on any conditions, and alwaj^s 
have been, but I don't see Avhat the dollar is for. I Avould like to haA^e 
that explained, Avhat that dollar is for, Avhat thev tax us the dollar 
for? 

Secretary Redfield. As I understand it, one of the things Ave are 
going to try to find out Avhen Ave go over there is that very thing. 
As I understand it, it is simply a nominal sum required to comply 
Avith the language oi an old treaty, something Avhich, I think, as far 
as the amount is concerned, our friends Avoukl be gladly Avilling to 
Avaive. But that ma}^ or may not be so. I think Ave are not ourselves 
sure. Captain. It may or may not be required in order to comply 
Avith the exact language of the old treaty. But, I take it, the dollar 
itself is not a serious matter? 

Capt. Grant. Oh, not at all. 

Secretary Redfield. It is the principle you are concerned Avith? 

Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. In that respect you are quite right. In your 
opinion Avhat else should be clone by ourselves or by Canada to make 
the deal one in Avhich you feel that you are getting the glad hand 
and extending the glad hand ? 

Capt. Grant. In my opinion, I think the ,only thing is to take the 
feeling out of the people in regard to these things. You see, they 
feel that Ave Avere robbed by that $5,500,000 aAvard. You can not get 
the feeling OA^er the 1861 trouble out ©f the Southerners, and it is the 
same Avith our people as it has been Avith the Southerners. They 
think Ave Avere beaten, and the Canadians think they gave us that 
beating. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, there is a very large amount of gen- 
uine human nature in that feeling. But noAvadays, you see, the son 



AMEEICAI^-CA:N■ADIA:^r FISHERIES COXPEEENCE. 245 

of the Confederate soldier is fighting side by side with the son of the 

Union soldier 

Capt. Gra>^t. Very true. 

Secretary Redfield (continuing). And Canada is giving her boys 
and we are giving our boys in a common fight. 
Capt. Gea>'t. Surely. 

Secretary Redfield. So we are coming to know each other better, 
and when we fight side by side Ave like each other better. 

Capt. Grant. C^h, we will get over this after awhile. We will learn 
to eat whale meat, although^it will taste awfully sour at first. 

Secretary Redfield. My cook is a good cook, and she doesn't know 
yet that it'wasn't beef she was serving. 

Mr. Sweet. Did you ever eat whale meat, Capt. Grant? 
Capt. Grant. I haven't, but I have eaten porpoise. 
Secretary Redfield. I would quite agree with you on that, Cap- 
tain, but the whale is a different bird. I think we will have to send 
Capt. Grant a can of whale meat— and don't tell your cook Avhat it is. 
Mr. Davis. We will have to put it on our list to get some. 
Secretary Redfield. The only difficulty is to get it. 
Mr. Sweet. The large amount of money spoken of, paid to Canada, 
was the amount settled upon by arbitration? 

Capt. Grant. Yes. -^ 

Mr. Sweet. Who were the arbitrators in that dispute? 
Capt. Grant. I have no idea, but they were not very good business 
men. 

Mr. Saveet. a little too friendly to our Canadian friends. 
Secretary Redfield. There was a Massachusetts man on that com- 
mission, too. 

Capt. Grant. Well, he came from the western part of the State. 
(Laughter.) 
Secretary Redfield. From Pittsfield. 

Capt. Grant. A Gloucester man would have been smarter than 
that fellow, I know. 

Mr. Sweet. I would like to ask you, Captain, if, seriously, there is 
ill feeling here in Gloucester or elsewhere in the United States grow- 
ing out of that, if there is much feeling left on that matter? 

Capt. Grant. Well. I expect that it is like everything else, hard to 
get rid of. 

Mr. Sweet. You think there is some left ? 
Capt. Grant. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Think of our feelings when we had to pay 
you $20,000,000 at the time of the Geneva award. 
Capt. Grant. Of course, we don't know about that. 
Mr. Sweet. The shoe was on the other foot then, wasn't it. Cap- 
tain ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. That wasn't fifty-fifty. 

Secretary Redfield. We are obliged to you for introducing a 
kindly element of human nature and good humor into the convention. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. JOHN MATHESON, OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. Your name and your business. Captain? 
Capt. Matheson. John Matheson, captain ; go mackerel fishing on 
auxiliary vessels. 



246 AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Secretary Redfikld. You litive occasion to use a Canadian license? 

Capt. Matiieson. If I could gei it. I would. 

Secretary Redfiklo. AVould you use one if you could ^'et it'^ 

Cai)t. Ma'J'iiesox. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. What would you do with it;! What would 
you use it for? 

Capt. Matfiesok. Probably get fittings; ship men at certain times. 

Secietarv Redfield. For all the general pui'poses a ship needs a 
port for? ■ Is that about it ? Is that right? 

Capt. Matiieson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Now, y,ou have heard this proposed arrange- 
ment talked about, haven't you? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. I will assure you that it is not the whole job, 
by a great deal. We have got the problem of Fraser River and other 
problems to tackle, but I don't want to worry you gentlemen here. 
We do not, however, want you to think that this is the Avhole thing. 
Do you regard the ari-angement as proposed as a square deal all 
around; and if not, why not? 

Capt. Matfiesox. I clon't think we can compete with the Canadian 
fishermen, fitting out from Gloucester. 

Secretary Redfield. Why not? 

Capt. Matheson. Because it costs us more here to fit out. 

Secretary Redfield. For what? 

Ca])t. Matheson. Most everA^thing : for the vessel, in the first place ; 
to build the vessel. 

Secretary Redfield. You are referring, I take it, to the time be- 
fore the war ? 

Capt. Matiieson. Well, naturally, it is going back again, I sup- 
pose, after the war. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, that is a very important question. 
Wl\y do you think it will go back after the war to the former condi- 
tions ? 

Capt. Matheson. Well, the vessels built down there, the material 
put into the vessels, wouldn't cost as nnich. 

Secretaiw Redfield. Why, again? 

Capt. Matfieson. Build cheaper ships. 

Secretary Redfield. You mean that they are not as well built ? 

Capt. Matheson. They serve the purpose just as well. I wouldn't 
say they are not as well built. A vessel here is built of very costly 
material. Down there the vessels are built of different materials, 
and don't cost as much money. 

Secretfiry Redfield. Is that because our uuiterial is scarce? 

Capt. Matheson. Say, for instance, you build a vessel of oak or 
of hard pine, and another of softwood, the ones built of softwood 
will cost less money. Still, the vessel will produce the same fish. 

Secretary Redfield. And is there that difference between the usual 
Canadian craft and ours, that one is built of hardwood and the other 
of softwood ? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir; as far as I know. 

Secretary Redfield. What kind of planking do our hulls have 
in vessels built in Gloucester? 

Capt. Matheson. A first-class vessel, of oak. 



AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKEXCE. 247 

Secrete! ry Eedfield. The planking of oak? 

Capt. Matiieson. Planking and timber. 

Secretary Eedfield. Throiighont? Is that the usual practice? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Copper fastened throughout ? 

Capt. Matheson. Not copper: galvanized iron. 

Secretary Eedfield. Galvanized iron fittings throughout. What 
is the difference in cost between such a vessel and a Canadian vessel 
doing the same work? 

Capt. ^Iatheson. I think they can fit out cheaper from a Cana- 
dian port. 

Secretary Eedfield. You mean l"»y that, get their e(juipment for 
less? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. And as regards supplies? 

Capt. ]Matheson. I think they could fit out with supplies cheaper. 

Secretary Eedfield. You mean that the supplies cost less. Now. 
Captain, have you niacie an actual comparison of those matters, or 
are you speaking from what has been told you ? 

Capt. ]SIatheson. Well, I haven't lately been to Canadian ports. 
The last Canadian port I was in was last spring, and you could get 
lots of things there cheaper than in Gloucester or any American port. 

Secretary Eedfield. But you were not able to get them there? 

Capt. Matheson. No, sir: without I violated their law. 

Secretary Eedfield. But under the new arrangement you. would 
be ixhle to get them? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. So under the proposed arrangement you would 
have the advantage of chea])ness in the Canadian ports? • 

Capt. Matheson. I would: yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. On supplies and fitting out? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. Woidd be on an entire parity with Canadian 
vessels in that respect ? 

Capt. Matfieson. Of course, there are two ways of looking at that. 
I am interested in two vessels, part owner of two. and go as master 
of one, myself. Suppose T went from here and fitted ou.t one vessel 
in Nova Scotia, and that my other ]5art owners would be running 
a business here. I think I would be hurting them, wouldn't I ? 

Secretary Eedfield. They certainly wouldn't get the business if 
you bought the goods down there. 

Capt. Matheson. That is the idea. 

Secretary Eedfield. But on the other hand vou woidd be able 
to pay them a larger profit, perhaps, by getting the goods elsewhere. 
and if you can do that raid do do it, are you not working for the 
benefit of your company? 

Capt. Matheson. Of course, as I say, there are two ways of look- 
:'ng at it. M3' idea is that we couldn't compete, because you can run 
a vessel cheaper from a Canadian port, and under this arrangement 
there would be an inducement for the Canadians to stay home and 
ship and fish from there. 

Secretary Eedfield. Well, how about getting other men? 

Capt. Matheson. Might in time, but the idea is to get the fish, 
now. 



248 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have you any actual fio-nres as to the cost of 
a Canadian vessel such as you speak of? 

Capt. Mathesox. No, sir; I haven't; not at the present time. 

Secretary Redfield. What do vou assume the diiference in cost 
to be? 

Capt. Mathesox. I should judge a third less in Canachi. 

Secretary Redfield. That is a Canadian vessel, doing the same 
work, could be built for twc-thirds of the money that an American 
vessel can be built for? 

Capt. Mathesox. I think she could. 

Secretary Redfield. People owning these vessels are in the lousi- 
ness, I suppose, to stay? 

Capt. Mathesox-. We hope so. 

Secretary Redfield. Would it not seem common sense for them to 
build a vessel so that she would do the greatest amount of ^\ork 
over the longest amount of time? 

Capt. Mathesox. I didn't get that question. 

Secretary Redfield. I ask you whether it wouldn't seem common 
sense for them to build a vessel so that she would do the largest 
amount of work over the longest amount of time ? 

Capt. Mathesox. You mean, build a vessel that would last longer? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. Wouldn't that seem common sense? 

Capt. Mathesox^ Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. You don't mean to have the commission 
understancl that the Canadians don't know how to build a good 
vessel ? 

Capt. Mathesox. No; but the material wouldn't last as long. You 
build a vessel out of birch or soft wood — spruce — and it Avon't last 
as long as a vessel built of oak. 

Secretary Redfield. I understand, but is that the fact always or 
usually, Captain? 

Capt. Mathesox. I imagine so. 

Secretary Redfield. Well, really, do you know ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Well. I know they are built of softwood, down 
there. 

Secretary Redfield. Usually or sometimes? 

Capt. Mathesox. Well. I have been in the shipyards and have 
seen them. 

Secretary Redfield. That is what we want to knoAv. precise facts. 
You have been in the shipyards and have seen them made of soft- 
^vood ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Whereabcnits was that yard ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Liverpool. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know whether that is the custom else- 
where in Canada? 

Capt. Mathesox. Well, I imagine it is at Lunenburg. We see the 
A'essels after they come here. 

Secretary Redfield. And find them to be softwood vessels? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. AVe are not attempting in anyAvay to ques- 
tion your statement, but simply want to make sure of our facts. 
When we get down to St. John, you know, the men tliei-e may say 



AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAK FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 249 

the other thing, and we want to know how 3^011 know it, so as not 
to be taken unawares. Xow, is it your opinion, then, that that is a 
factor which applies throughout the business generally ? 

Capt. Matheson. I imagine so. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do you know. Capt. Matheson. how much 
such a vessel, say, of 100 tons, a fishing schooner of 100 tons, would 
cost if built here to-day ? 

Capt. Matheson. I know that I couldn't get one built under any 
conditions, I myself. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You couldn't get one built? 

Capt. Mathesox. I don't think so. They wouldn't guarantee when 
it would be built. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I suppose you know. Captain, that the cost 
of shipbuilding in Canada has tremendously advanced during the 
last few years? 

Capt. Mathesox. No doubt. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Of what wood are vessels built here in 
Massachusetts and Maine constructed? 

Capt. Mathesox. Oak and hard pine. 

Chief Justice Hazex. The cost of wood of that sort has advanced 
tremendously ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I suppose you are aware that the cost of 
wood of all sorts in Canada has soared up to prices that are simply 
fabulous ? 

Capt. Mathesox. No doubt. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Spruce, which two years ago was an inex- 
pensive wood, to-day is extremely expensive. In fact, it is hard 
to get it for love or nu)ney for certain purposes. You wouldn't be 
able to give us to-day the diiference in cost on a boat built in Canada 
and a boat built here or in Maine ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Some of the people here might be able to do so. 
T understand that shipyards are taken for an indefinite time, even 
where they are building fishing vessels. I couldn't get one built if 
I wanted to. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Any fishing vessels being -built in Massa- 
chusetts to-day? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Whereabouts? 

Capt. Mathesox. Essex. 

Chief Justice Hazex. In the State of Maine ? 

Capt. Mathesox. I think so, possibly. 

Chief Justice Hazex. If it is possible, we would like to get some 
figures in regard to ship-building costs here, and then when we go 
to New Brunswick we Avill get the cost there. If there is anybody 
here who can give us such figures we would like to have them. Now, 
have you of late made any comparison between the cost of supplies 
in Canada, in Nova Scotia, and the cost of supplies here in Massa- 
chusetts, such supplies as are required for outfitting fishing vessels? 

Capt. Mathesox. Vegetables there are cheaper. 

Chief Justice Hazex. What are you paying for potatoes here? 

Capt. Mathesox. %2 a bushel, I imagine — around that; might be 
somewhat less. 



250 AMERICA N-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Chief Justice Haze>\ If that is the case, there is little, if any, 
(litference in the price paid in Canada and that paid here, for pota- 
toes. But Ave AYonld like to get a statement before the commisison 
of the prices paid heie in this country for supplies for fishing- ves- 
sels, and then Ave Avill have some reliable persons in the maritime 
provinces give a list of prices paid there. AVe Avill then knoAv. 

Secretary Rp:dfield. Will you furnish us memoranda on that point ^ 

Capt. Smith. We Avill try to see that you are furnished figures 
shoAving Avhat Aessels ai'e paying here and what our vessels are pay- 
ing cloAvn there. 

Secretary Redfield. That will be first rate. ^ 

Chief Justice Hazen. I Avould like to ask a question in regard to 
equipment. Captain. When you spoke of equipment being cheaper 
in the maritime provinces, Avhat equipment did you mean ? 

Capt. Matheson. Outfits in general. Some things are higher. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You mean nets? 

Capt. Matheson. No; I Avouldn't say nets Avere cheaper there. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, rope? 

Capt. Matheson. I Avouldn't be sure about rope. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, Avhat is there you could get. if you 
were on board a fishing vessel cheaper in Canada? 

Capt. Matheson. Referring to the food ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Referring to the equipment, that is used 
for catching the fish, fishing equipment. 

Capt. Matheson. Labor? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Xo ; I am not talking about labor, but I 
am referring to the statement about equipment being cheaper. Did 
you mean that the food was cheaper ? 

Capt. Matheson. I meant that you could fit a vessel cheaper there, 
always could. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You say fit a vessel. For Avhat? 

Capt. Matheson. Fit it for sea, to go fishing. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Well, take the question of the equipment 
that is necessary for catching fish — the nets, ropes, things of that 
sort — can they be purchased cheaper in Nova Scotia than in Massa- 
chusetts ? 

Capt. Matheson. I Avouldn't say on the nets' The fishermen in 
general Avould rather have American nets. I haA^e seen fishermen 
buy American nets when they had to pay $24 or $26 for the nets, 
Avhen the}^ could get an English net for $6, because they Avould 
rather have the American nets. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It certainly ought to be much better for 
that price. 

Capt. Matheson. Yes; that is a fact; and there are men here 
Avho Avill bear me out in that. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It is true that some of the articles required 
on a fishing trip Avould be higher in NoA^a Scotia than in jNIassa- 
chusetts ? 

Capt. Matheson. American articles Avould. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And other articles Avould be higher in Massa- 
chusetts than in Nova Scotia? That Avould be true? 



AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN JFISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 251 

Capt. Matheson. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And in order to strike the ditference you 
ought to have a complete list. Perhaps Capt. Smith can give us 
that. I suppose you know, Capt. Matheson, from your experience, 
that prices in Canada are very much higher than they were some 
years ago? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes; no doubt. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose you know that in the year 1013 
the prices were very rapidly advancing in Canada ? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes; no doubt. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And that there has been a general upward 
trend in the price of commodities and articles in that country? You 
know that, I suppose ? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. When a fishing vessel starts out for the season, how 
large a quantity of supplies does she lay in to begin with? F^nough 
for one trip ? 

Capt. Matheson. That is according to the trip she is going on. 
For mackerel fishing they generally fit out for about six weeks or 
seven weeks. 

Mr. Sweet. Get enough to last until they come back and discharge 
the cargo of fish? 

Capt. Matheson. We leave here and go to the southward, fish off 
New York, and, of course, there are more or less things we get 
there — fresh meats, butter, and stuff that wouldn't keep very Avell. 

Mr. Sweet. If a Canadian vessel came here, unloaded her fish, and 
was granted clearance to the fishing banks, and then came back here, 
and then went to the fishing banks again and back again with a load 
of fish, where would she buy her supplies — food? 

Capt. Matheson. Buy her supplies Avhere she could get them the 
most reasonable. I would, if I was on the vessel. 

Mr. Sweet. And if she was running from Gloucester out to the 
fishing banks and bringing fish here direct, would she be likely to get 
her food supplies here or go to some Canadian port to get them, or 
somewhere else? 

Capt. Matheson. Probably take enough for a month or two 
months, what we call heavy food, probably use salt beef. Our fisher- 
men have got so that they don't dare to carry nuich salt beef, as the 
men don't like it. We have not carried much for five or six years. 

Mr. Sweet. She would carry some supplies in bulk, in a sort of 
wholesale way, and then get part of her supplies on each of these 
voyages, each trip? 

Capt. MLi^THESON. Very likely do what we call patching out; get 
stuff for two or three months and patch out on the fresh stuff. 

Mr. Sw^EET. And if those food supplies cost more in Gloucester than 
in some Canadian port, she would be at a disadvantage to that extent, 
to the extent that she bought food in this market? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sw^EET. Of course, it would be of some advantage to Gloucester 
to have that additional business, I suppose? 

Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. Now, referring to the advantages, you said when you 
first commenced to testify that if a vessel of yours propelled by 



252 AMERICAK-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. 

auxiliary power Avas entitled to take out one of these licenses you 
would get one? 

Capt. Mathehox. I never had one in ray life. 

Mr. Swp:et. But you said you would if you were entitled to have 
one? 

Capt. Matiiesox. Yes, sir; I would. 

Mr. Sweet. What would be your motive in getting it ? 

Capt. Matheson. Well, probably Avould go down there and fit out. 

Mr. Sweet. In other words, you would probably find advantages 
in having it ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sweet. Now, then, would the advantages of having a license 
that would permit you with the kind of vessel you use to go into 
Canadian ports to discharge a small or broken cargo, as they call it, 
make shipments in bond here or any other place you please, rather 
than having to come back here, that would give you all the privileges 
that a Canadian fishing vessel has — would that, do you think, be 
any more than an offset, or would it be a substantially fifty-fifty 
arrangement, granting them the privilege of coming in here, that we 
are talking about? 

Capt. Mathesox^, I think so. 

Mr. Saveet. You think it would be pretty nearly an even thing ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Even to some extent, but, as I said before, if you 
had a firm here and the^^ were interested, you would naturally like 
to fit from your firm. Pro])ably they wouldn't want you to go some- 
where else. 

Mr. Sweet. But, speaking broadly, it wouldn't be a very uneven 
bargain from what you say, I take it ? 

Ca]Dt. Mathesox. No. I think myself, though, that jou would be 
practically giving the fishing business to Canada. The vessels, of 
course, would be coming here, but I think myself it would be the 
same as moving down there. 

Mr. Sweet. You think the Canadians would be able to catch our 
market if we did that, do you? 

Capt. Mathesox. That is what I think myself. That is my per- 
sonal opinion. 

Mr. Sweet. Are you now taking into account the facts that have 
been brought out here in regard to the markets, the increasing de- 
mand for fish from all over the country, a rapidly increasing demand? 
Are you taking that into account? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Saveet. Have you heard the testimony of several gentlemen 
who have testified here, that there is not enough equipment in the 
United States and Canada combined to anyAvhere near meet that 
demand ? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. But those men make their money han- 
dling fish. I don't. The firm I go for don't. We fish. 

Mr. Saa^eet. I knoAv, but an enlarging or increasing market is just 
as much an advantage for the man Avho catches the fish as for the 
man Avho merely buys the fish and sells it again, isn't it ? Isn't it for 
the advantage of all engaged in the fish industry to haA^e a big 
demand for fish? 

Capt. Mathesox. Yes. sir; but the man AAdio handles them can 
make the most money. 



AMEEICA]Sr-CA]SrAI>IA]Sr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 253 

Mr. Sweet. We are not deciding between the two. 

Capt. Mathesox. The more fisli that comes in, the more lie can 
make. 

Mr. Sweet. We are not inquiring into rehitive advantages in that 
respect. You will admit that it is an advantage to everybody if the 
fish market of the United States is very largely increased and brought 
up somewhere about where the British market is; that it will make 
plenty of work probably for both Canadian and American fishermen ? 

Capt. Mathesok. les; but I would probably be of the same 
opinion and would probably wind up like Capt. Spinney, going down 
and getting a vessel there. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We would be delighted to have you there, 
Captain. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, OF 

GLOUCESTER. 

Capt. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I don't want it to go out that Capt. 
Spinney is going away from us except temporarily. I think Capt. 
Spinney Avill say that he is going to fish out of Gloucester again. 
Isn't that right. 

Capt. Spin^;ey. Yes, sir. I am going down there tor aAvhile, but 
I live here and Gloucester is good enough for me, and I would just 
!\s soon fish on this side as the other. But I didn't have anything to 
do this summer and had a pretty good chance, and so I said, " I 
guess it will work out all right." But this side is good enough for 
me. It is all right in Canada, as far as that goes, but I think if we 
get together and make it fifty fifty it will be better. 

Congressman Lufkin. Capt. Matheson, are you going to have an 
American vessel of your own built here? 

Capt. Mathesox. When the opportunity conies to get it built; 
would like to have one built here later. I would have one built now 
if I could get it. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Smith, can you tell us about this dif- 
ference in outfitting? 

Capt. Smith. I can get the figures for you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Redfield. We would like to get a statement of what you 
pay for a vessel outfitted here and in Canada. 

Capt. Smith. I can get figures on a great many articles. 

Secretary Redfield. Will you? 

Capt. Smith. I will. , 

Secretary Redfield. And making the comparison an equitable one, 
in which the conditions are the same. 

Capt. Smith. We have had vessels this year that have bought the 
whole outfit in Canadian ports, and I will give you those prices. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you. 

Capt. Smith. And let you know what the other vessels are paying 
here for them. 

Secretary Redfield. That is just what we want. We would like 
to have you send that information to Dr. Smith, in Washington, 
please. (See Exhibit W.) 

Capt. Smith. I will do so. 

Mr. Found. Captain, can you give us the cost of a 100-ton vessel 
here and the cost of a 100-ton vessel in Canada ? 



254 AMEFiTCAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Capt. Smith. I don't know ns I can tell yoii about the cost in 
Canada at the present time, but the Canadian vessels are cheaper 
than vessels here. 

Mr. Found. Do they last as long as American vessels? 

Capt. Smith. No. 

Mr. FouMD. Then an American vessel may be cheaper in the long 
run ? 

Capt. Smith. She is, in the long run. For instance, one of .our 
vessels is 20 years old, and I think we would class it with a vessel 
built in Lunenburg that was 10 years old. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, as a matter of fact, taking a series of 
years, the American vessel does not cost as much as the Canadian 
\essel ? 

Capt. Smith. Not after the first five or six years. One great 
saving in running vessels out of Nova Scotia is that they don't fit 
them so liberally as we fit them here. I am interested in a way in 
vessels sailing from Canada and Newfoundland, and those vessels 
gave us moi-e money and the crew got more last year than from ves- 
sels out of here, because it costs so much more to fit the vessels here, 
and we gave them so much more. They denumd more here. 

Secretary Redfield, The same men? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It wasn't so much because of the extra prices 
here ? 

Capt. Smith. No, sii'. 

Chief Justice Hazen. But because the vessels here were fitted out, 
I may say, more liberally ? 

Capt. S^iith. Yes, sir; and more economically down there. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Take the pork, beef, butter, things of that 
sort that enter into the cfinsumption on a fishing vessel ? 

Ca!)t. Smith. Cost more doAvn there than here. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The prices there are higher, are they? 

Ca]:»t. Smith. Yes, sir; and that is the reason Avhy Ave had some of 
our vessels come here and fit. We have three bankers now. for 
instance, sailing out of Newfoundland. They took their outfit here 
this spring, because we could buy it much cheaper than down there, 
and the vessels are fitted much more economically than those same 
^essels woidd be fitted if they Avent out of (Uoucester the last few 
years. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Does that mean that the sailors sailing out 
of Gloucester demand more of what you might term luxuries? 

Capt. Smith. Well, a little different class of food. 

Chief Justice Hazen. A higher class? 

Capt. Smith. Yes. 

Secretary Redeield. Capt. Snnth, have you had actual experience 
in sailing vessels yourself? 

Capt. Smith. No. sir. 

Secretary Redeield. Are you able to say whether a Gloucester ves- 
sel built of oak, as has been described, is a vessel that could be driven 
harder ? 

Capt. Smith. Oh, yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Than a Canadian vessel? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 



AMEEICAN-CAN^ADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 255 

Secretary Redfield. Does that mean capacity to make her trips 
faster ? 

Capt. Smith. Not necessarih^ : no. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is she a more efficient vessel i 

Capt. Smith. Not for the first five years or so. When she is new 
she is just as good as ours. 

Secretary Eedfield. But after that? 

Capt. Smith. x\fter that she needs more repairs than ours; don't 
hist as long. 

Secretary Redfield. At the end of 10 years is the additional 
amount in a Gloucester a essel well invested or ill-invested, compara- 
tively speaking? 

Capt. Smith. Well invested. 

Secretary Redfield. So the capital, if I understand you correctly. 
is invested more eifectively throngh the life of the ship in the 
Gloucester vessel? 

Capt. Smith. I think so; 3'es. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. So, taking vessels by and large, a hundred of 
them, it isn't the first cost that is the controlliong factor, but what 
you are able to get for the cost in the long run i 

Capt. S:mith. That is the way I look at it. 

Secretary Redfield. It is the same as in buying machine tools. 
For one yon will pay $1,000 and for another $600, but at the end of 
six years the cheaper one is Avorn out, and the other one is still good 
for six years. It is the (Question of the work done by the two tools, 
respectively, relative to the cost rather than the first cost of the tools, 
that is to be considered? 

Capt. S:mith. Yes, sir. 

Secretarv Redfield. And where you can get a thing that is that 
much better for $1,000, you will use the $1,000 article instead of the 
7?()00 article right along, if you have the capital? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretarv Redfield. Exactly. I ran a factory on that basis for a 
good many years, right along. 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. I don't think you save over $2,000 now 
between Lunenburg and Essex on the same materials. 

Dr. Smith. On what total cost ? 

Capt. Smith. $20,000. 

Secretary Redfield. So really you have here simply two diilerent 
theories in the construction of vessels — whether it is better to build 
a cheaper vessel and build more often, so to speak, or build a better 
vessel and not build so often ? That is the fact, is it not, from a busi- 
ness standpoint? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. I think it is hard to get oak in Nova Sco- 
tia, and always has been. 

STATEMENT BY MR. ORLANDO MERCHANT, OF W. H. JORDAN CO., 

GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, there were two Glintonias built in 
1907, one in Nova Scotia and another here, and Mr. Merchant can 
tell you just what they cost at that time. 



256 AMEEICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, 

Secretary Redfield. That was 10 _years ago. 

Mr. Orlando Merchant. The Clmtonia buiU here cost $15,000 
before putting anything on it, and the other cost $9,000 ready for 
the sea down there. I think they are both living to-day ; neither one 
of them is worn out. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What was tlie one built here built of? 

Mr. Merchant. Oak. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And what was the other built of? 

Mr. Merchant. I suppose of softwood, the same as all of them 
down there. They are both living and going to-day. 

Dr. Smith. Which is the best? 

Mr. Merchant, Probably the Nova Scotia Z'lintonia will go for 
five years longer, but it is not as good a boat as the other. 

Mr. Marshall. The one here has just made two trips to the 
Mediterranean, and I doubt very much if the other one could go 
abroad to-day. 

Secretary Redfield. You see, the question is, when you are speak- 
ing of prices, considering prices in Gloucester as compared with 
those in Canada, whether the additional price paid for a ship here 
is well or ill spent. 

Mr. Merchant. A Gloucester ship is better; there is no doubt 
about it. 

Secretary Redfield. And over a period of years would be the 
better investment ? 

Mr. Merchant. Of course, there is quite a difference in price be- 
tween $9,000 and $15,000. The Clmtonia. here cost $15,000. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You think there would be the same ditfer- 
ence in prices now? 

Mr. Merchant. I think there is. The vessel would cost more here 
now. Such a vessel would cost here to-day over $20,000. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Yes; because the cost of everything has ad- 
vanced. 

STATEMENT BY MR. CHASLES F. WONSON, OF THE GLOUCESTEE 
SALT FISH CO., GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. WoNSON. Mr. Chairman, most of the testimony so far has been 
given by vessel owners or fishermen. In Boston, for the last two days 
you have heard the statements of fresh-fish men or cold-storage men. 
I want to speak, as I can, from the standpoint of a class of distribu- 
tors of which there are quite a few in the city, who are not vessel 
owners and are not producers in that way, but are quite large dis- 
tributors and are quite an important factor in the distribution of 
that product. 

Our business here, as you know, is largely salted, pickled, and 
smoked fish, and it is, to my mind, as important an interest as even 
the fresh or cold-storage interests. I will try to explain why. 

Our friends in Boston, the fresh-fish people and the cold-storage 
people, testified before this commission that, owing to the distance 
and to transportation difficulties, they were able to supply only a cer- 
tain area of the country. Now, without our salt-fish market how 
could the balance of the large territory be taken care of? Further- 



AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADiAK' FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 257 

more, even in that area which tliey chiini that they can cover well 
and safely at the present time there are occasions when fresh fish 
are not procurable on account of the weather conditions and possibly 
because there is not a sufficient quantity in the cold-storage ware- 
houses. You can see how^ necessary is our salt-fish product, which 
is a reserve supply. 

Further than that, it is not always convenient, it is not always pos- 
sible, it is not at all possible except for immediate consumption, for 
the housewife to have in her store closet a supply of fresh fish, and 
if at a moment's notice she thinks that fish would be a good meal 
for the day she sends to the market and the market man tells her 
that to-day, because of this, that or the other, no fresh fish are avail- 
able. She then either has to buy meat or go without- her dinner. 
But with the salt fish on hand she knows that she is provided for, 
because she has salt fish. She has salt mackerel, she has all kinds 
of canned fish to-clay, if she is a careful housewife, and that sort 
t)f thing is growing tremendously, as demonstrated by our friend 
Frank E. Davis. She has a supply of each of those fish on hand, 
and is able to furnish her family and guests with a meal. That 
shows the necessity of us people who are clistributors of salt fish pro- 
curing the material from which we can make the salt fish. The fear 
seems to be expressed by our fresh-fish people that if the Canadian 
or foreign vessels were allowed free access to our American ports the 
fresh fish would be here in such an oversupply that it would depress 
the market prices to such an extent that the business would not be 
remunerative. But without what they call the surplus supply, vchat 
we call an ample suppl3^ we would not have a chance to buy those 
goods at a figure which we call a splitting price, which enables us to 
do dress, cure, salt those fish, and hold them for the salt-fish busi- 
ness. Our friends in Boston, if you will remember, stated that they 
had on hand at the present, I think, about 2,000,000 pounds, which 
could not be sold for 6^ cents. Well, (H cents, gentlemen, seems 
pretty cheap, when they are getting 12. 14, and 15 cents, but 6| cents 
is a mighty good price for fresh fish in a wholesale way, and it pays 
the producer a mighty good profit. Those fish, I think I am safe 
in sa3dng, could be sold for 3 cents a pound to the splitters, and thej^ 
would command that to-day. They have sold much cheaper in the 
past, and yet have shown an extremely good profit to the Droclucers 
of those fish. 

Xow, then, we must get this surplus supply, and I Avant to speak 
for my friends who are in the same sort of business that I am, in the 
open market. I am not going to speak on the other side, because I 
am not a vessel owner and it does not interest me, except that as a 
citizen I want to see the closest connections in every way between 
the two countries. But I will speak on one side of the question and 
will try to show the necessity for a more ample supply of fish from 
some source in our American ports. Otherwise Ave Avill not have the 
salt-fish products which will enable us to do our share for the food 
supply of the people of this country. 

A very small proportion of our stock in Gloucester to-day is taken 
for what we term sahed fish from the vessels. Most of our product 
to-da,y — and that means a change as compared Avith years ago — is 
51950—18 17 



258 AMERICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, 

bioiiglit into the market fresh or seniifresh, or iced. We take it, 
split it, dress it, salt it, put it into the butts, and hold it until such 
time as the trade demand that we take it out, cure it and pack.it. So 
we are depending almost entirely to-day upon the fresh-fish receipts 
for cur stock of the salted goods. 

I want to say a word, if you will allow me to do so here, for the 
much-abused whiting, because it has had a peculiar history and I 
have had perhaps a peculiar experience in connection with it. This 
is going to be a rambling talk, perhaps, but I would like to tell the 
Secretary about this if he .cares to hear me, because I was in the 
business when whiting Avere fii'st commenced to be caught by trap 
and weir fishermen along the coast. For many years these whiting 
Avere considered a pest by the fishermen. They AAould fill the traps 
and prevent fish of other kinds getting in, and they Avere thrown out 
of the traps by hundreds of thousands of barrels. But because there 
Avere so many tht)usands of these fish a great many Avould become 
tangled in the meshes of the nets, and Avhen the nets Avere hauled 
the fish Avould have to be taken out by hand. As it Avas just as 
easy to throAv the fish into the dory as to throAV them overboard, 
some of the fishermen, in order to pay their overhead costs, would 
save those fish, bringing them to the splitters, and the splitters tried 
to see if something could not be done with them by salting them. 

At that time, as you know, as a fresh fish possibility they were not 
considered at all. Very many dealers did try to sell the fish, but the 
people didn't think very much of them. The fish had no fat ; the_A 
Avere a very Avatery fish. When they are salted the salt seems to ab- 
sorb all the moisture there is. They get very flat and it seems as if 
there Avas nothing but skin to them, and they are rather tough. But 
they Avere cheap and Avere sold by hundred of thousands of barrels at 
25 or 30 cents a barrel. It didn't pay the fishermen, but at times no 
other fish Avere running and they had to take them out, and they 
felt that perhaps they could get a day's Avork out of a dory load, tAvo 
or thrpe dollars. So' they were glad to sell them for "25 or 30 cents a 
barrel. So they didn't cost the dealer much. It Avas more a matter 
of labor expense than anything else. They tried to put them on the 
market as a cheap salt fish foi'the southern trade. The product, on 
account of its price principally, took tremendously, and very 
shortly they Avere being cured and sold by carloads to all the southern 
country. That trade Avould have been continued for years had the 
same education been extended to the fish dealers, the same educational 
policA% that is uoav being carried out by the GoA;ernment of the 
country. That is to say, if the dealei-s had" been educated to take any 
kind of fish and put it"on the market in the past, it Avould have been 
the best possible think for the fish industry. But Avhat Avas the con- 
secjuence? The fish Avas so cheap that nobody cared much about it. 
A number of concerns took them on to fill in si^are time for their 
men employed temporarily. If anything more important came in 
the men working on those fish Avoidd be taken off for the more im- 
portant duties, and the fish Avould lay around perhaps 24 or 48 
hours before they Avere finally dressed, salted, and sent doAvn South. 
Anything Avas good enough to go doAvn South. 

What Avas the consequence? In tAvo or three years the dealers co:ij- 
nienced to haA'e an over-supply on hand, and they asked the trade 



AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 259 

what the trouble was. They ^Ye^e told, *"' We caiVt do anything with 
the fish. Our customers Avon't eat them.'" "" Wliy not ? '" '" They 
saj they are no good ; that they are not put up as good as they used 
to be." It was simply want of care. But a report came in regard 
to the fish from a great many people. The fish, being salted, became 
Aery dry, and AA'hen fried — and most fish are fried in the South — 
they AA'Ould curl up, and the report came to us that these fish AAould 
fiy out of the pan. That AA'as an exaggeration. They Avouldn't fly 
out of the pan. but they would curl up. I had at this time a thousand 
barrels on hand, and some of my friends more than that or as many. 
The trade AA-onldn't take hold of them, and Ave about all concluded 
that they AA'ould have to be sent to the glue factory or the fertilizer 
factory, and very many barrels Avere so sent. But T had a thousand 
barrels, gentleuien, that I tliought I had taken pretty good care of, 
and I hated to send a couple of thousand doJhirs to the guano factory 
if I could help it : and so I started some experin^ents, ;uul this touches 
on my AA'hole point in regard to education. 1 said, " I believe those 
fish properly prepared can be relished, if they are properly cooked,'' 
and I took some of the fish liouie and, remeuibering wliat had been 
written me from the South in regard to the fish curling up and 
flying out of the i^an, I said, " I aaIII skin the-fisli. soak them out, and 
try handling them in that Avay. boiling theui and cooking them in 
different ways.'" I said, ''Anything that is good enough for me to 
eat is good enough foi- anybody doAAii the other side of tlie line." 
and so I experimented Avith theui and fixed them up in good shape, 
and they AA^ere all right. When properly handled they Avould not 
curl up and fly out of the pan, and so I simply instructed people to 
try and skin the fish and comply Avith the inclosed recipes, and I 
AA^rote my customers and bi'okers and said I Avoidd send those leaflets 
in quantity to any customer who Avould handle the gi^ods, to influence 
the dealer to push the gt)ods. You had to use some influence, because 
they had been giAcn a black eye and CAerybody aasis against them. 
I told my customers that for every hundi-ed bari'els thfit they Avould 
take and market, at a certain price, I Avould put in fiAe foi' Avhich I 
Avouldn't charge, and that Avould be Aelvet for them. 

That was attractiA'e advertising, and I gi\'^e you my Avord that that 
thousand barrals of fish, instead of going to the waste pile, Avent to 
the trade South and Avas satisfactory. We commenced to learn some- 
thiug about Avhiting and counneuced to take better care of them; but 
in the mean time the fresh fish and cold-storage people found that 
they were a pretty good fish and they brought a better price. What is 
in the market has sold from $T to $10 a hundred, and the market is 
cleaned out and the demand is growing. That is Avhat can be done 
with Avhiting. I speak of Avhiting because everybody knoAvs about 
Avhiting. and it has been talked about a good deal. It can be done 
with all kinds of fish. That sort of work can be done Avith all kinds 
of fish. We IvAxe had our experience here in the past Avith food fish 
that has been brought here in an unmerchantable condition, and 
Avhich people have felt obliged to utilize and send out to the trade. 
It Avas done to a certain extent, but the btisiness Avas ruined. The 
dealers came together and said, " We will have no business left if 
you allow this sort of thing to continue" ; and so we took a stand and 
said to the fish captains, " Gentlemen, you must bring in your fish 
in proper condition, or we will not accept it from you." The sug- 



260 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

gestion was taken very kindly ; the men understood the situation, and 
since then the fish have been brought in in very much better shape 
than ever before. As a consequence ovir trade, without the war con- 
ditions, has continued to expand and increase. 

I trust, gentlemen, that in considering this question you will con- 
sider the advantages of the distributors, the advantages which the 
distributors, have Avith their conveniences to place before the Ameri- 
can public any quantity of fish that they can secure. But the diffi- 
culty with us who are equipped to distribute those fish is to get the 
fish. We are not vessel owners and we can scarcely expect a man who 
is a vessel owner to furnish us Avith the product so long as he can 
utilize it himself. Consequently^, Ave are obliged to look to outside 
sources for our fish. So if you can giAe us the fish through any legis- 
lation you can make, or any treaties, I Avill guarantee that there are 
enough people in Gloucester Avho Avill and can improve their con- 
veniences of distribution so that Ave Avill do our part to take care of 
the trade. 

STATEMENT BY CAPT. THOMAS M. NICKERSON, OF BUCKSPORT, ME. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Ave have Avith us here 
to-day Capt. Thomas M. Nickerson, from Bucksport, Me., a man Avho 
has been a sea captain and Avho is a large vessel OAvner there noAv, 
and Avho rejiresents the entire fishing business of the State of Maine. 
He tells me that he can not make a speech, but that he is Avilling 
to be interrogated on an}^ matter. This man has risen from captain 
up to a large vessel owner, and is A^ery conversant Avith the entire 
subject. I Avill introduce to you Capt. Nickerson. 

Secretary Kedfield. Captain, Avhat is your full name and your 
business ? 

Capt. NicKEKSON. Thomas M. Nickerson, of Bucksport, Me.; in 
the fishing business ; salt-fishing business. 

Secretary Redfield. Are you a fish producer? 

Capt. Nkkekson. I am. 

Secretary Redfield. Not a fish distributor ? . 

Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. You are both a fish producer and a fish dis- 
tributor 'I 

Capt. Nkkerson. I am. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you OAvn your oAvn vessels? 

Capt. Nickerson. I do. 

Secretary Redeield. Have yo.u had actual experience on a sailing- 
vessel, 3^ourself ? 

Capt. Nickerson. I have. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you ever held a Canadian license, Capt. 
Nickerson ? 

Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Why did you have the license? 

Capt. Nickerson. Well, to go in to different places. The vessel 
has been into Shelburne, Yarmouth, different places along there, 
and Sydney, I guess. 

Secretary Redfield. Did you feel that the license Avas needed? 

Cajt. Nickerson. Why, yes, sir. 



AMEETCAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 261 

Secretary Redfield. And thought you could ali'oi'd to pay the 
license fee ( 

Capt. XiCKERSox. Vrell. we thought so. 

Secretary Redfield. Would it be an advantage to you to have the 
license extended to your power vessels? 

Capt. XiCKERsox. Have none. 

Secretary Redfield. You have no power vessels? 

Capt. XiCKERsox. Xo. sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Would it be an advantage to you to have the 
license fee reduced to a nominal charge of a dollar a year? 

Capt. XiCKERSox. Well. I wouldn't want to say. but if we could 
go in there for one thing and another, perhaps it nught be all right. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, the point I had in mind was this: 
You now have to pay $1.50 per registered ton for a license? 

Capt. XiCKEKSox. I understand. 

Secretary Redfield. And the proposition before us contains as a 
portion of' it the suggestion that the license fee be practically done 
away with and that a nominal charge of $1 per annum per vessel 
be substituted. 

Capt. XiCKERSox. I should feel that that would be all right pro- 
\iding there were no concessions made from this side. 

Secretary Redfield. What do you mean by that, Captain? 

Capt. XiCKERSOx. Well, I don't want to enter into that subject, but 
there are various things that might be referred to at the present 
time. I am only a fisherman, but I have been more or less down 
through your country on my way to Xewfoundland. back and forth, 
for the past 1:2 years, and I no doubt have heard, listened to 
quite a number of your men in regard to one thing and another, and 
of late years the war: and. I being, as they knew, from what they 
call " the States."" they have sometimes discussed the question of us 
coming with them. I told them I guessed we would come, that the 
time was coming when we would come, and we have come, and I feel 
as if with what we produce and what we have done, that we. I 
think, are doing all that vre ought to do, without giving any con- 
cessions. 

Secretary Redfield. When you say '' concessions "' do you mean 
that we in the United States should not grant the Canadian vessels 
the right to enter our ports directly ? 

Capt. XiCKERSox. I do. 

Secretary Redfield. And why so, Captain? 

Capt. XicKERSOx. Why. you have your own fishing grounds, your 
own ports: you can build vessels with your own materials, and you 
have got the men. and it looks to me as if you had got everything. 
It looks to me as if we didn't have but a very small part in this, when 
it comes right down to justice and fairness. You know, it costs 
people more to live, more for everything h^re, and we can not com- 
pete. We can not think of competing with these fish coming in here 
free. I don't believe it. 

Secretary Redeield. In other words. Captain, it is your idea that 
fish delivered to you in an American vessel costs more to deliver than 
it would in a Canadian vessel. Is that so? 

Capt. Xickersox. Well. I don't know. Your advantages are more, 
of course. It is more to vour advantage, vou beino- so much nearer 



262 AMEEICAN-CAlS^ADIAiSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

the fishing grounds and my compan}^ so much farther away, and 
your men being there. 

Secretary Redfield. I am an Ameidcan. 

Capt. NiCKEKSOX. I beg pardon. 

Secretary. Redfield. You don't have to apologize. 

Capt. NiCKERSON. I know, but you are asking lue sometliing that 
is pertinent to both sides. 

Secretary Redfield. That is right. 

Capt. NiCKERSON. And I am answering to the best of ni}^ ability. 

Secretary Redfield. What we want to get at in the commission is 
this. If I understand you correctly, you do not feel that you can 
compete on even terms with the Canadian vessels. Is that so? 

Capt. NiCKERsoN. I don't, really. I don't feel that we can. I don't 
know. My gracious I I think we are doing a good deal, and I believe 
this is a serious question for the fishermen and the vessel owners of 
the States of Massachusetts and Maine, covering practically the 
coast of New England and probably as far as NeAV York. I don't 
know. I think we are doing all and giving all that we can, and I 
don't know but a little mite more. 

Secretary Redfield. But I don't get an answer to my question, 
Captain. 

Mr. Sweet. Is this your idea. Captain? You think, as long as we 
have gone into the war and are helping our Canadian friends out, 
that they can not respond too generously to ns? 

Capt. Nickerson. There, sir, you have got it ! 

Mr. Sweet. That is your idea ? 

Capt. Nickerson. Novr you have just hit the nail on the head. I 
didn't like to bring that in, but I think that is the situation at the 
]3resent time, taking things the way they are and what ^ve are doing. 
I don't want to be selfisii or anything of the kind, but I think really, 
my gracious goodness' sake, we are entitled to something. 

Secretary Redfield. Suppose, Captain, you look at it from this 
point of view, that, rehitive to population and relative lo resources, 
in a Avar which is of connnon interest and is as important to us as 
to them, Canada has done far more in proportion than we are pro- 
posing to do, even. Now, looking at it from that point of view, 
which is the fact, if you take the relative resources of Canada and 
her population, think of her sending half a million men and main- 
taining them, a tremendous undertaking, their blood having been 
shed like water, as ours perhaps will be, in a common cause, if there 
exists any obligation by reason of what the respective nations have 
done in the war, the obligation is from us to them, broadly, and not 
from them to us. They were in it first; they have sufferecl far more 
than we. They have given of their children in far larger proportion 
than we have done, and if we were to give in proportion as they 
have done our army in" Europe would outnumber tiiat of Great 
Britain and France put together. I am afraid you haven't thought 
of that. 

Capt. Nickerson. I have, very carefully. I have this to say, that 
we are only just, practically speaking, amateurs in going in, and we 
have not got there. We have only just commenced, just started; but 
before we get through I am afraid there is going to be a different 
way to look at it than at the present time. 



J 



AMEEICAN-CAN^ADIAN FISHERIES COiN'FEBEXCE. 263 

Secretary Redi-ield. I hope so. 
Capt. NiCKERSox. I don't blame you. 

Secretary Eedfield. Xoav. let us come back to this proposition, 
Captain. Our Government approached the Canadian Government 
^Yith a request that they grant us certain privileges in their ports. 
The lequest came from Ub. The proposition was originally our own. 
They say, "' While we nominally have free access for our catch to 
your ports, as a nuitter of fact, by reason of ancient navigation laws, 
by reason of laws passed in the eighteenth centur3^ you are imposing 
upon us certain restrictions which we would like to have removed." 
Xamely, they ask to have the right to come directly into our ports 
fiom the banks and to go directly to the banks from our ports. Xow, 
if the}^ give to us such rights in their ports freely, why isn't it a fair 
proposition for us to reciprocate ? If it is not fair, why isn't it fair ( 
If it is not fair, we want to know it. 

Capt. NiCKERsox. We pay for that privilege. 

Secretary Redfield. They purpose to give us that privilege free, 
of course. 

Capt. XiCKERsoN. Xow, to speak plainly and conscientiously, we 
are all more or less selfish, and I am going to be as just as I can in 
answering that question. We have vessels here and you have vessels 
there; you have fish there and we have tish here. Now, I presume 
a man who actually has vessels that catch fish would naturally like 
to have his own markeis to market his fish in. He doesn't like per- 
haps to have another country, we will call it, marketing their fish 
perhaps in the same market. But the other man can do it, now. 
This Canadian country can produce fish and put them onto this 
market in spite of all, and do it for less monej" than it can be done 
here now, I am afraid. It is the same in the construction of vessels. 
As far as material is concerned, they haven't got to go far back for 
what they want. They have all they need, and they have their men 
to build them for a less amount of wages, and they have got the 
fishing grounds nearer io them than we have in this country, much 
nearer, and they can produce fish, 3^011 know, and more of them, for 
less money than Ave can from this coast. Massachusetts or anywhere 
between here and Cape Sable, 

Secretary Redfield. Are all the banks nearer them? 

Capt. NiCKERsoN. Yes, sir. But my line is salt fishing. There are 
banks off here, but they produce more fresh fish. Fresh fish come 
from aroimd these grounds. 

Mr. Smith. May I inquire how many vessels go from Maine ports 
to the salt bank fisheries? 

Capt. NiCKERSox. I may have five or six, suppose I have another 
one. six or seven. 

Mr. Smith. The total number? 

Capt. NiCKERSOx. That is, bank fishing, I don't know, but I think 
I am the only one sending vessels salt fishing, bank fishing. 

Mr. Smith. Where are your fish sold? 

Capt. NiCKERsox. Sold out of Bucksport. They come in there, 
and we ship them. We cut and smoke, sell some whole, sell them 
both ways. 

Mr. Smith. Where are your principal markets? 

Capt. NiCKERSON. Sell in many different places — Massachusetts, 
New York, sometimes farther. We export some fish to Porto Rico 



264 AMEinCAN-CANADlAN FlSllKlllES CONFERENCE. 

aiul soiuetiinos to II;i\'aiiii: soini'tiiues dvy and lialt'-ciuvd Hsli and 
send tlitnn to Porto Kiro. 

Secretary Kkdkieli). Do yon ha\e tronble in ii'etting fish enongli? 

Capt. NuKKitsoN. Yes, sir; sometimes have lots of tronble in get- 
ting fish, and sometimes not so nnieh. 

Secretary Rediteld. Of late yon are gettino- all the fish yon need? 

Capt. NuKEUsox. No. I bny them. 

Secietary Redkikld. That is. in addition to yonr se\en or eii>ht 
vessels ? 

Capt. NiCKEiisoN. No, sir — or se\en now, have added one. 

Secretary Redeield. In addition to the lot they can get yon are 
still bnying fish? 

Capt. Nu'KEKsox. Some on the coast. 

Secretary Redeield. Any tronble in getting them when yon want 
to bny them ? 

Capt. Nu'KEiJsoN. Sometimes they don't come too planty. 

Secretary. Redfield. Is the bnsiness growing. Captain? 

Capt. NuKEKsox. Well, now. I shonld say that in the past conple 
of years it might have imin-oved some. 

Secretary Redeield. Isn't that a very moderate statement. Cai)- 
lain? 

Capt. Nu'KEiJsox. Well, to qnite an extent. 

Chairman Redeield. To <]nite an extent? 

Capt. Nk'keksox. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redi-'ield. Why do you suppose the bnsiness is growing 
so fast. Captain? 

Capt. Nrkersox. AVell, the conntry is increasing in popnlation. 

Secretary Redeield. Short of meat, is it not? 

Capt. NickI':ksox. And all the physicians throngh the conntry are 
advising people more than they nsed to to eat fish, and it is in all 
the papers, and we have to take into consideration that the shortage 
of food this winter has cansed more consnmption of fish. 

Secretary Redeield. And yon think that likely to grow ? 

Capt. NiCKEijsox. Well, there, I wish I knew ! 

Secretary Redeield. Yon hope so? 

Capt. Nu KERsox. Yes, I hope so. 

Secretary Redeield. Where do the American people come in on 
this proposition. Captain? 

Capt. NiCKEKsox. I don't know; in regard to the people, 1 don't 
know. Of course, yon know, when yon come to this question of the 
American people, why, there are some people, yon know, that are — 
well, we don't want to go into that, perhaps, because I am not a 
blue blood, and when you discuss that with me we would have to go, 
you know, into these people that are away above fishermen, that 
think they are. 

Secretary Redeield. TIa\"e you ever heard such a thing as coni- 
]:)laint because the cost of living was so high? 

Capt. Nk'kersox. I have. 

Secretary Redeield. And what about the American people being 
entitled to get the largest possible snj)]dy of fish at the lowest ])rice? 

Capt. NicKEi.'sox. That is all right. 

Secretary Redeield. They onght to have it, ought they not? 

Crpt. NiCKEiJSOx. Why, I don't know Avhy not; provided the men 
in the business are properly treated. They have got to get a profit 



AMERICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 265 

out of their business, but tlie}^ can not get the profit that they are 
getting down about a couple of hundred miles from us to the east- 
ward. Those fellows are the fellows that are making the money 
to-day. They are making a great deal more, in my opinion, then we 
are up here, and they are doing it easier. They have got the men, 
and they have built. I don't know, about thirty-odd vessels this 
winter, I hear, and have all the men they want and have the fishing 
almost, as I tell you, at their own door, and they can not help pro- 
ducing fish at much less, with the labor to take care of and handle 
it. than in this country. That is where it comes, in my opinion. 

Secretary Redfield. What percentage of the fish that comes into 
our country comes from Canada? 

C'apt. NiCKEKSON. I haven't the statistics and I don't keep track 
of that, perhaps, as much as I ought to. I don't know. 

Secretary Redfield. It is rather surprising, isn't it, under the 
circumstances, with our market so very high and their costs so very 
loAv, that their entire catch is not sold in the United States? Isn't 
that rather surprising? 

('apt. XicKEKSox. Well, you know, tliere is good air down there 
to cure the fish, good mai'kets to ship the fish through the West 
Indies, and the men own more interest in the vessels and take care 
of everj^thing, and they are as much ahead of us as the sun is above 
the earth in some ways, and they can not help but getting something- 
out of this when we can not, on account of the expense. 

Secretary Redfield. Your idea is that the Canadian fishermen run 
the business better than we run our business? 

Capt. Nit'KEKsox. I don't know about their running it better. 
They are no smarter men. They have some good men and we have 
some good ones here. 

Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Captain. AVe are very 
much obliged to you. 

STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE J. TARR, OF THE GEORGE J. TARR 
CO., DEALERS IN FISH OILS, GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Tark. Mr. Chairman, others have expressed their views with 
reference to other parts of the fish industry, and I have an industry 
which is known as a by-product. It is as essential in every respect 
as the codfish business, although its volume of business is not as large. 
I noAv refer to the cod-oil business. 

I hope, whatever may be the future legislation pertaining to this 
matter, it w ill not prevent the people of the United States from con- 
tinuing to bring in fish and cod oil to our country. Some years ago 
it was without difficulty that we got all the oil we wanted right here 
in this port and along the Maine coast, as far as Eastport. Gradu-. 
ally the vessels commenced to leave, for one purpose or one reason 
and another, until the Grand Banks fleet that we depended upon 
so much has almost ceased to exist. Merchants of Gloucester have 
gone to other ])laces to obtain their supplies, as you all well know, 
and we with our small industrj^ had to follow suit. 

At that time there was a protective tariff, and I was a protection- 
ist, because we were getting plenty of cod oil. I was a protectionist 
because the menhaden industry — an industry having perhaps the 



266 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

greatest volume of money invested in it, more than was invested in 
the salt-fish business of New England — was then struggling for ex- 
istence, on account of the low price of the goods; but gradually, as 
all things do, as everything is doing all the time, things changed 
and continued to change all the time, there began to be greater de- 
mands for the poor menhaden oil, that was the cheapest grease on 
the market, competing with grease that came from France, going 
into the manufacture of leather. Gradually, by improvement in 
methods in connection with the menhaden oil, by different methods, 
taking better fish and converting it into a light oil, it was used in 
connection with linoleums, soaps, paints, and for lots of other pur- 
poses, the price being raised so that it was more valuable than cod 
oil. Cod oil, on the other hand, has to go into the leather trade. 
This is a very important question. 

Automobile leathers, sole leathers, upper leathers, kip leathers, 
every kind of leather worn to-day by ladies or gents, is bathed in cod 
oil. Xow, the supply of cod oil is limited. Newfoundland pro- 
duces about 15,000 barrels a year: Canada nms from 7,000 to 14:,000. 
depending on the catch. You can see how limited that is when it 
comes to supplying the manufacturers of the United States with 
their oil. While menhaden oil in Avhat we would term an ordinary 
or a good year was being produced to the extent of 187,000 barrels, 
we have taken that right out of the market, from where it used to 
be consumed, because in connection with every piece of steel, every 
saw, every hammer that is tempered, they use menhaden oil. and 
consume it in large quantities. But cod oil is distinct : there is 
nothing in connection with the manufacture of a piece of leather 
equal to cod oil. Its nature is such. We have now only 30,000 bar- 
rels of. cod oil, or say in a good year 50.000 barrels, to use in the 
United States, where Ave need at least double that quantity. Now. 
let me give you an idea of the way things have been changed. We 
were buying oil 20 years ago at from 30 to 35 cents a gallon. What 
is taking place to-day? It is $1.05 a gallon, the same oil, and there 
is not half enough to go around. We are paying the fishermen 05 
cents and even a dollar, in some instances. It is an important thing 
to keep this market open. We can not go without it. Some will say 
to you, " Get it from Norway or Iceland.*' We get very little from 
there. The Germans, the first year of the war, gobbled all the cod 
liver oil and carried it off to Germany, and it is scarce in England. 
It may be surprising to you to know that the year before the war 
186,000 barrels were imported into this country for consumption. 
We want the consumptives to still have their oil from Nova Scotia. 
or wherever it may come from. It has got to come. You Avant to 
bear in mind the by-products from codfish. There are the fish blad- 
ders, and there are the fish sounds, an enormous quantity, hake 
sounds. An enormous amount are imported from other parts of the 
world to suppl}- the demand. Of course, those handling those fish 
can tell more about them than I can. 

I am going to digress just a bit. and only for a moment. I have 
been in the last 10 years visiting nearly every port in Canada, large 
and small, trying to find oil, and I have gone into the small hamlets 
and the largest cities. I have dealt with the fishermen and I have 
dealt with the merchants, for the last 8 years more particularly, and 



AMERICAI^-CAK"AI>IAX FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. 267 

I want to say to you, gentlemen, if I am any kind of an observer at 
all. that Gloucester has done much for Canada and Canada has done 
much for Gloucester. The closest of feelings are now existing. The 
people are welcoming the men who have gone there and bought 
green fish that never was sold before. Those fishermen are building 
more boats to-day and are bringing more of their sons into the busi- 
ness, and I think I speak Avith authority Avhen I say that the 
Gaspean coast has more fishermen on it to-day than ever before in the 
history of the business. That means much for the interest of the 
business. All the concerns that have gone there and located have 
built up the industry for those jDCople and have impressed them at 
all times with their fair dealing. Also, on the south side of Nova 
Scotia the same firms have gone there and established places. All 
along the Maine coast they are establishing places and working hard 
to induce the people to produce more fish. But Mr. Carroll this morn- 
ing told the greatest truth in regard to the matter. The reason why 
the fishing business has been on the decline for so many years is 
simply because fishermen didn't get enough for their fish. How can 
a man afford to go fishing, the most hazardous business in the world, 
and get only small compensation? But there is now a change, and 
we are seeing the results. Their shipvards are full, are busv. Men 
want to build beam trawlers costing' $250,000 or $300,000." Why? 
Because they think they can get something in return. Mr. Carroll, 
who has had great exj^erience in distributing fish, also says that this 
is a vital thing and that the people must not expect to get fish for 
nothing: that they must not get the idea that fish is scum, but must 
have the idea pumj^ed into their heads that it is as good as beefsteak, 
and some like it a good deal better. That is the great trouble here. 
We have had too low prices, so that fishermen were getting only $400 
or $500 a year, dragging along a miserable existence. 

But now the thing has changed, and the Government of the 
United States is sending this commission around so that we can ad- 
vertise our case and get it before the public. This is what has been 
needed, what should have been done years ago. Our industry needs 
fostering. It should have been done long ago, and I hope your com- 
mission will do everything it can. will keep the thing going, and will 
let the vessels come in with fish. We will take care of them. We 
are going to have freezers come in as an important factor. I had 
10 years' experience in the fresh fish business on Commercial Wharf 
anci T Wharf, and I know something about it. We will have the 
beam trawlers and open ports in connection with Canada, and then 
Gloucester will thrive. 

STATEMENT BY MR. HENRY E. PINKHAM, OF THE HENRY E. 
PINKHAM CO., GLOUCESTER. 

Secretarv Redfield. Are vou a producer or a manufacturer of salt 
fish ? 

]\Ir. PiNKHAM. Well. I would like to tell you a few of my expe- 
riences before answering questions. On January 26. 1906. I started 
in the salt fish business, manufacturing salt fish, boneless fish. Our 
company is the Henry E. Pinkham Co. We started with a very 
small capital, so small that it is hardly worth mentioning. $600. 
Well, since that time, there has been no other concern started in tlie 



268 AMEEJCAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEREXCE. 

boneless business in the city of (jloucester. I mentioned tlie oihor 
nig'ht that the A. Booth Co. started, but that has been started a 
number of years. The trouble has been lack of raw material. I 
don't blame the large concerns. Mr. Carroll, when I started in busi- 
ness, w^as the first man to help me out with the banks in Gloucester. 
I have never forgotten the kind act he did. 

But we need larger amounts of fish coming in here to supply our 
great country. The people of this country need food, and we should 
supply them with it, no matter whei-e it comes from. We can't get 
in so much that we will not know what to do with it. We never 
in my experience have been overburdened with so much fish that we 
can not sell it. In my opinion, which may not be right, this thing 
that is proposed will not hurt me. I am interested, own a steamer, 
a gill netter, we call it, and I value her at $11,500, which operates olT 
this coast, and if fish becomes so cheap as everybody says, I will not 
be able to operate her. But I don't worry about it. If the Cana- 
dians come in with fish I will get more to work with, and pei-haps 
will go down there and operate there and ship fish to this country. 
The gill net fishery is quite a large business, and there is a lot of 
money invested. I suspect that there must be $5,000 invested in the 
city of Gloucester in the gill net fishery. If they could go down to 
Nova Scotia and operate and ship fish to Boston it would be a great 
benefit to this country. At this time of year we don't get any fish 
there, because the season, you might say, is otF. About the ist of 
March we start the fishing year and get very good fishing. But, on 
the Avhole, we need more material here. There is no man. I don't 
care how large or how small his business may be, who will say that 
we do not need more material, because we are going after it every 
day. Take a small man, with a small business, it is almost impos- 
sible for him to go after it. I have to stsij home and take care of 
the business. You say, "How small is your business?" I have put 
out since May 1 1,000,000 pounds of fish, and when I started the 
first year I put out 15,000. In the last 10 weeks I have put out $45,- 
000 worth of fish. It is going somewhere, the people are being fed, 
and that is what the country needs, something to feed the people. 
That is my idea of it, and I don't want to be so self-sufficient as to 
try to keep everybody from bringing fish into this port, particularly 
when everybody is uoav favored under free trade. I don't believe 
there is a concern in the city that has not prospered wonderfully 
undei- free ti-ade. I have, and I think everybody else has. 

STATEMENT BY ME. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT BOSTON FISH 

PIER CO. 

Mr. Parkek. Mr. Chairman, just a word of explanation. Some- 
thing has been said about 200,000 pounds of fish in Boston that 
they couldn't sell at G-|- cents, and the statement was made in regard 
to how they did dispose of it, in connection with the statement I 
made yesterday that we couldn't get fish enough. As a matter of 
fact, that fish was not put onto our exchange for sale. It was 
brought in by the Bay State Co., which tried to distribute it in 
its 6wn stores and hold the price above the market. We were not 
offered a chance to buv that fish. 



AMEEICAX-CAISrADIAlSr FISHERIES CO:NFERE]SrCE. 269 

COKEECTION OF STATEMENT BY CAPT. GAEL C. YOTJUG 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. SecretaiT, in Boston yesterday or the 
day before yesterdaj^ Capt. Young made a statement with regard 
to American vessels that had take out modus vivendi licenses hav- 
ing to apply to Ottawa in order to transship fish. I think that he 
Avould like to make a statement about that here. 

Capt. Young. Mr. Chairman, I have found out that what I said 
in that respect is not so. that my statement was not correct. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOSEPH McPHEE, OE THE RUSSIA CEMENT 
CO., OF GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Eedfield. Is jMr. Joseph McPhee in the room ? 

(Mr. McPhee came forward.) 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. McPhee. we had some discussion in 
Boston yesterday with regard to the uses that are made of fish 
waste, and some reference was made to the fact that fish waste was 
being transformed into fish meal, which was being used as food for 
cattle and fod for poultry. I am informed that you will be able 
to give us some information upon that subject. 

Mr. McPhee. That is, so far as poultry goes. We get the raw mate- 
rial from the fishing concerns in Boston — that is, skins, waste, bones, 
and other material that they do not use for food. It is cooked, the 
liquor extracted and evaporated down, and we get glue out of that. 
Our concern manufactures Le Page's glue. Then the remaining ma- 
terial is put through a dryer and is then thoroughly ground. For 
a number of j^ears it was sold as fertilizer, and then the fertilizer 
plant to which it was turned over was sold out, so that that branch 
of the business was discontinued, and since then this chicken food 
has been developed in this way. We are making up what we call 
chicken foad from it. Nothing is added to it. It is just as we get 
it, being ground and handled in that way after being extracted, 
using what is left after we get the material for the glue. 

Chief Justice Hazen. As I understand it, the waste which was 
formerly used for fertilizer is now used as chicken food? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You have found that it is a fairly profitable 
business? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir; fairly so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Hovr long have you been engaged in that 
business ? 

Mr. McPhee. The chicken feed is something new ; I don't think 
over a year and a half or two years. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Speaking in dollars and cents, what does 
the business amount to, the chicken food business? 

Mr. McPhee. I couldn't say just what it would figure. 

Chief Justice Hazen. It is a growing business? 

Mr. McPhee. Oh, yes. We can not get enough material to sup- 
ply the demand at the present time. 

Chief Justice Hazen, This food is a favorite food with poultry 
raisers ? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 



270 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Chief Justice Hazen. They find that they get good results from 
feeding their hens upon it ? 

Mr. McPiiEE. Yes, sir; it is a good food for producing eggs and 
also makes good broilers. 

Secretary Redfield. You are turning fish into meat and eggs? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Are you using all the fish waste that you 
can get for this purpose? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If yon could get more fish waste would you 
extend your business? 

Mr. McPiiEE. I think likely. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The quantity of fish waste you can get de- 
pends. I suppose, on the quantity of fish brought into this port? 

Mr. McPhee. It is brought here from the Pacific coast and also 
from Canada. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You get this waste from the Pacific coast? 

Mr. McPhee. No ; not the waste. We get the glue from the Pacific 
coast. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And also get glue from Canada, do you? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir: we have a plant at St. John, NeAv Bruns 
wick. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Who is running it for you'? 

Mr. McPhee. Charles E. El well. He lives on the hill the other 
side of the railroad track. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Yes: you are able to secure fish waste there 
for glue? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes. sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That business is progressing all the time ? 

Mr. IMcPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, the more fish business that is done, the 
more people there are eating fish, the more chicken food there will be. 

Mr. McPhee. And glue. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And I suppose that means more chicken food 
for the jieople of the United States and Canada ? 

Mr. McPhee. I should think so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is it an economical food for poultry? 

Mr. McPhee. It is in the long run. It costs more at the start, but 
there is more value to it. more protein value in this fish meal. I 
understand, than in anything they have put out. The meat concerns 
for a number of years did something in that line, and do some now, 
but we- have taken some of that business, because the meat scraps. 
as they call them, have been falling off, and they have been getting 
refuse meat from the soap factories, tallow plants, and slaughter- 
houses, so that it has hurt business and nuide more of a demand for 
fish meal. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That fish meal, if I understand you cor- 
rectly, is made from glue you get from the Pacific coast and Canada, 
and manufactured here? 

Mr. McPhee. Not from glue ; it is made from the material left 
after the glue has been made. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The meal is made here ? 

Mr. McPhee. Wherever the glue is made. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You make it in St. John ? 



AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEETES CO^iTFERElSrCE. 271 

Mr. McPhee. No; not enough there to bother with. It is sold 
there. I think, to the Provincial Chemical Fertilizer Co. 

Chief Justice Hazen. But you have this factory in St. John where 
you take this fish waste, and you manufacture that there into glue 
material ? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Then, that glue material is sent on to you 
here ? 

Mr. McPhee. No : we have this plant located on the other side of 
the line to take care of our sales in Canada, to save sending goods 
into Canada from the United States, which saves the duty. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. 

Mr. McPhee. And we have at times an oversupply of raw mate- 
rial in Canada, which is brought into this country, because there is 
no duty on it. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you manufacture any of the meal in 
Canada, at all? 

Mr. McPhee. No ; it is sold to the fertilizer company. 

Chief Justice Hazex. All the meal manufactured, then, is manu- 
factured here in Gloucester? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do you employ manj- people in that in- 
dustry ? 

Mr. McPhee. Of course, this meal has to come from the glue end 
of it, and is a by-product. I think we have 250 employees. 

Chief Justice Hazex^. Employed in your glue industry to-day and 
in the making of meal? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. That is quite an industry. Do you pay 
large sums in wages? 

Mr. McPhee. Our pay roll here is $2,500 a week. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do you find that your individual wages that 
you pay to men in an individual capacity in your factory here are 
much larger than in St. John? 

Mr. McPhee. Of course, in St. John they have only four men. and 
the foreman there gets about the same as our foreman over here, 
practically. There isn't much difference except that we have on\j 
four down there as against a large number here. 

Chief Justice Hazex. But, as far as the individual wages are con- 
cerned, there is not much difference ? 

Mr. McPhee. No. 

Chief Justice Hazex. A man in St. John gets about the same as 
a man in Gloucester? 

Mr. McPhee. Pretty near. Still, I think they are paid more here. 

Chief Justice HAZEX^ Can you tell us how much more ? 

Mr. McPhee. Well, perhaps 20 per cent. 

Chief Justice Hazex. That is. men doing an equal class of work? 

Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir, 

Mr. FoTjxD. What do you use for the purpose of manufacturing 
the poultry feed, on that end of your business ? 

Mr. McPhee. On that end of it there is nothing but a common 
grinder, the same as one that would grind grain. 

Mr. FouxD. And a dryer? 



272 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Mc'PiiEE. The dryer is n common dryer, manufactured in 
Cleveland. 

Mr. Found. You collect over a consideral)le area if 

Mr. McPiiEK. Yes; from Gloucester down through beyond Halifax. 

Mr. Found. You collect the raw material. How do you trans- 
port it? 

Mr. McPiiEE. They bring it into St. John by either boat or rail, 
and then we get quite a large stock from the St. John producers. 

Mr. Found. In what condition does that raw material get here? 

Mr. McPpiEE. Most of it is from fish that are salt cured, have been 
on the flakes and dried. 

Mr. Found. Using sounds? 

Mr. McPhee. No sounds at all, just offal. 

Mr. Found. Internals and heads? 

Mr. McPhee. No internals — heads, skin and bone. 

Mr. Found. Are you handling what is commonly called along oui- 
coast offal, entrails, heads and such like? 

Mr. McPhee. All but the entrails. We don't handle entrails or 
oily stock, at all. 

Chief Justice Hazen. If you could get more fish you would be 
able to extend that business? 

Mr. McPiiEE. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And increase its importance to the city of 
Gloucester ? 

Mr. McPhee. Very much so. 

Mr. Found. What size packages do you put the chicken food u]) in? 

Mr. McPhee (handing catalogue to commission). Here is one of 
our catalogues, which I shall be glad to turn in to 3^ou; 5 or 10 
pound packages and 100-pound bags. 

Secretary Eedeield. What disposition is made of the offal that 
is produced here in any of the canning factories or otherM'ise? 

Mr. McPhee. You mean by the off'al, I suppose, the material we 
handle? 

Secretary Redfield. The entrails? 

Mr. McPhee. I understand by the entrails, in common phrase, 
the insides^^-the guts, in other words. We don't handle any of 
those. I don't think they are handled here. 

Secretary Redfh'^ld. Is none of that material produced here in 
the canning process, at all? 

Capt. SMrrn. Not used at all. 

Secretary Redfieed. I ask the question because the director of 
markets of the State of California, who is himself a business man of 
large experience, called the attention of the Commissioner of Fisheries 
to the fact that the entrails, guts, are used on the Pacific coast to 
manufacture this very chicken meal such as you speak of producing 
here. 

Mr. McPhee. I never heard of it. 

Secretary Redfield. The evidence available to us is that the prod- 
uct from all kinds of offal of the canneries of Alaska alone pro-, 
duces a product of that kind of an annual value of $8,000,000. 

Mr. McPhee. You saw that in a magazine article? 

Secretary Redfield. No; in a direct connnunication to me of the 
director of markets of the State of California, handed to me by the 
Connnissioner of Fisheries within a fortnight. Anybody interested 



AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONPERBlSrCE. 273 

can communicate with Mr. Weinstock, director of markets of the 
State of California, in San Francisco, and get the wliole tiling. 
It seemed to be a matter of very considerable interest to him. 

Mr. McPhee. There is a plant also in Anacortes, Wash., Avhere 
they handle a large amount of stock there, salmon and halibut, but 
I believe they have never used the entrails, never would use them. 

Secretary Redfield. Of course, this is quite a new matter. I 
understand from the commissioner of fisheries of Canada that 
they are using those entrails on Fraser Eiver fo-r various purposes. 

Mr. McPhee. I am glad to know it. 

Mr. Found. For oil, and in Xova Scotia they are making glue. 

FACTS ABOUT THE - SEAL" IN HALIFAX HARBOR. 

Secretary Redfieed. If Capt. Frank C. Pierce is here, perhaps he 
can tell us accurately the facts in regard to his having been asked 
by the collector of customs at Halifax to sign an agreement concern- 
ing the vessel jSeal. 

Capt. Smith. Capt. Atwoocl was the master, and he is not avail- 
able, but I think I can state the facts. The Seal, one of our beam 
trawlers, went out on the banks and met with a mishap to the 
machinery. She went into Halifax to have some repairs made and 
get a few supplies. She bought the supplies, and the collector of 
customs asked the captain if he would sign that agreement not to 
fish Avithin the 12 miles. He showed the captain the agreement, 
which the other beam trawlers had been signing, for one year, ancl 
Capt. Atwoocl said, "Well, I had just as soon sign for this trip." 
He said he was perfectly willing to do that, as he didn't intend to 
fish within the 12 miles, anyway. So he signed the agreement not 
to fish within the 12 miles for that trip. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The collector asked him to do what he had 
been asking our own fishermen to do, and he had no right to do so. 

Secretary Redeield. There Avas a misunderstanding, and we will 
look into it more carefully. 

Secretary Redeield. Is there anybody who can inform the com- 
mission as to the vessels sold from Gloucester to other countries in 
the last year or two, or two or three years, and as to the reason for 
their sale? 

Mr. Frederick L. Davis. I don't think anybody in the hall can 
give the information, but I think I have figures available on that 
matter that can be ascertained, by reference to our records. 

Secretary Redeield. We have in the Bureau of Navigation the 
actual transfers of all ships, and the reason why I am asking the 
question is because those records seemed to show that the number of 
vessels sold in eachyearof the last three or four 3- ears has been exactly 
11; and yet I gathered the impression from something said in Bos- 
ton that the number was thought to be very nuich larger than that. 

I wondered Avhether Ave could get accurate information from some- 
body. 

Mr. Davis. I am of the opinion that possibly for the year 191T 

II vessels might cover it, but I think in 1915 and 1916 the number 
Avas larger. The number of tliose sold in 1915 and 1916 were sohi 

51950—18 18 



274 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERJP^S CONFERENCE. 

in order to get rid of them and to get neAv vessels, bnt those sohl in 
1917, I guess, were sold becanse of war prices, becanse there was so 
much temptation to sell, the prices being so great that they got their 
year's profit by selling the vessel. 

Dr. Smith. None sold in 1917. were there ^ They were not allowed 
to be. 

Mr. Davis. Vessels were sold in 1917, just the same, out of port. 

Dr. Smith. Not to any foreign country ? 

Mr. Davis. I don't know where they went, but sold out of port. 
(Further statement on this matter by Capt. Smith, page 277.) 

STATEMENT BY MR. E. ARCHER BRADLEY, GENERAL MANAGER 
SYLVANUS SMITH & CO., GLOUCESTER. 

Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman, E. Archer Bradley. 

Secretary Redfield. Will j^ou kindly state your business? 

Mr. Bradley. Vessel owner and distributor of fish. After listen- 
ing to the questions asked by your honorable board and the replies 
that have been made, I am led to infer that Canada is Avilling to 
grant a concessiou by making the license fee for a vessel $1 instead 
of $1.50 per ton. 

Secretary Redfield. Correct. 

Mr. Bradley. It seems to me that principle is entirely wiong, and 
there has been onlv one witness you have had wlio has expressed him- 
self that way. Capt. Peter Grant. When the treaty of 1818 was 
entered into, of course, the fishing business was a very small matter 
to both countries. As it grew and the matters of friction increased, 
the modus vivendi Avas entered into between the two countries. At 
that time Gloucester accepted it because she had a large fleet of 
bankers and was depending a great deal on the Nova Scotia ports 
for bait. Since that time the fleet of bankers has dwindled aAvay. 
cold-storage warehouses have been erected along oui- shores, and 
there have been increased facilities foi- catching herring and bait 
fish here, so that the demand for the use of the Canadian ports for 
bait is very small at the present time. The conditions are still chang- 
ing. As has been said here, a large percentage of vessels have auxil- 
iary power. We are also enlarging our fleet of beam traAvlers, and 
in a few years there will be a much larger fleet of beam trawlers. 
If we want to make the thing reciprocal, I should think our good 
Canadian friends would be willing that our vessels should have the 
same privileges in their harbors and along their shores as Ave grant 
them, and. in order to avoid friction later on, why not have ji treaty 
made that Avill embody that? If the old treaty of 1818 still remains, 
and we haAe a sort of modus vivendi Avhereby the vessels here shall 
pay $1 apiece license, Ave should haA e the same commercial privileges 
for our fishing vessels that other vessels have. As time goes along 
there Avill be changes in the methods of catching fish. Avith a liability 
to some more trouble, and Ave Avill have to go over the Avhole matter 
again. So it seems to me if our good Canadian friends desire to haAe 
mutual relations Avith us, as Ave certainly do with them, the conces- 
sions they should grant Avould be to grant our vessels the same privi- 
leges that Ave give their vessels at the present time. In that connec- 
tion. I don't knoAv that there should be this license fee that has been 
referred to. 



AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAlsr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 275 

Secretary Kedfield. I don't iinderstand that it is a matter of the 
dollar, the sum of money involved? 

Mr. Bradley. No, sir; it is the principle. 

Secretarj^ Eedfield. The principle of having any license? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. I have tried to explain that the commission 
has not yet been able to search the matter to the bottom, but the 
present imclerstanding is that that form of license is intended simply 
in order to comply Avith the terms of the old treaty, which was, so to 
speak, forced on Canada by the action of the British Government, 
rather than hj action on the part of Canada. We are not sure yet, 
as we are going to look into that matter further, but I would ask you, 
apart from that, what further privileges joii would suggest in order 
to bring about the condition of which you speak. 

Mr. Bradley. The same privileges that their vessels have alona 
our shores and in our harbors, within the 3-mile limit. 

Secretary Eedfield. Have you in mind any further changes on 
their side which that would invoh-e? 

Mr. Bradley. I hope it will involve the charging of a duty on the 
fish sold in our ports. 

Secretary Eedfield. That, of course, is not a matter that is within 
the province of this commission. 

Mr. Bradley. Well, in regard to the 3-mile limit? 

Secretary Eedfield. That can not be altered, as a matter of inter- 
national law. In both countries the conditions are the same in that 
respect. I didn't know whether yon might wish to suggest other 
things, such as mending nets, cleaning fish, etc. ? 

Mr. Bradley. Nothing; except that I would include such sugges- 
tions, which have been made by other gentlemen. 

Secretary Eedfield. Then, what further concessions on our part 
might be necessary ? If that condition was to be brought about? 

Mr. Bradley. In what way ? 

Secretary Eedfield. Well, there is a law of the United States, for 
example, which requires Canadian vessels navigating the territorial 
waters of the United States to report at the customhouse of the dis- 
trict, which I think Canada does not require us to do. That is a 
thing that we require of them that they do not require of us. If 
you went, for instance, to Portland, Me., where, from the geo- 
graphical location, ships have to navigate in our territorial waters, 
you will find that many Canadian vessels are obligated to enter 
themselves there and report themselves, which they do not ask of us 
at all. Don't you think we should abandon that ? 

Mr. Bradley. Isn't that because of their going under register and 
our vessels having a different style of papers? 

Secretary Eedfield. No. It is a part of the old law in force, and 
it throws an interesting light upon this discussion. That very thing 
that some of our friends here this afternoon object to as likely to be 
destructive, in their thought, quite sincerely, has operated on the 
Pacific coast for a great many years, vessels being required to re- 
port at an American port, being granted clearance to any port they 
seek to enter, and then being allowed to go directly to the fishing 
grounds from the American port, and the entire halibut business of 
the Pacific Ocean is done on that basis and has grown up in that 
way. So the commission is required to consider how it can be that 



276 AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

on the North Atlantic the thing would work destructively while on 
the north Pacific it is consistent with a very large growth in the 
industry. That is why we desire to learn Avhy these gentlemen think 
that what is proposed is likely to work harm here, whereas as a 
matter of fact on the Pacific coast the very same thing is in ex- 
istence and works advantageously. 

Mr. Sweet. If I get your idea, Mr. Bradley, j^ou are in favor of 
what we call here the fifty-fifty idea? 

Mr. Bradley. I think it should be reciprocal. 

Mr. Sweet. That is, in reaching a conclusion on the whole subject 
it should be oui- endeavor to secure for the United States and for 
our vessels every privilege, so far as is reasonable and possible, wip- 
ing out all causes of irritation between the two nations for all time 
to come, putting them as nearly as possible on an equal basis with 
respect to their vessels in our ports and our vessels in their ports? 
Is that your idea? 

Mr. Bradley. That is my idea. 

Mr. Sweet. That is what we want to know. 

Dr. Smith. Would your objection that you first stated be met if 
Canadian vessels which were accorded privileges in our ports were 
subjected to the same form of license that is thought to be necessary 
for American vessels entering Canadian ports? 

Mr. Bradley. I liave a feeling, as I have stated, that as things go 
along there will be other matters of friction, and that we should have 
to go through this same hearing possibly again. 

Dr. Smith. If possible, you would like to do away with the neces- 
sity of a license for either country ? 

Mr. Bradley. That is the way I feel; yes, sir. 

INFORMATION ABOUT SALE OF GLOUCESTER VESSELS. 

Capt. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the (question has been asked why our 
vessels liere were sold. The}^ were sold because we got all or more 
than they Avere worth, sold because we got the value and got good 
prices for them. 

Secretary Redfield. To Avhat countries Avere they sold? 

Capt. Smith. Newfoundland. NorAvay, South Africa, West India 
Islands. We haA'e sold some in the United States. I presume you 
referred to those that changed flags. 

Dr. Smith. Any to Canada? 

Capt. Saiith. No, sir; I don't remember of selling a vessel to 
Canada. 

Dr. Smith. During 1917 or any recent year? 

Capt. Smith. No; we couldn't sell in 1917. Previous to that for 
the last three or four years Ave liaA^e sold A^essels and bought them, 
for the last 10 or 12 years, and replaced them Avith some other A^essels. 
There are some that have been sold by the captain or the owner 
desiring to get out of the business, because the vessels have not been 
profitable. 

Secretary Redfield. Do I infer correctly, Capt. Smith, that this 
policy of yours is a regular polic}^ ? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Whereunder you treat your plant in what you 
regard from a business point of vieAv as the most profitable way? 



AMEKICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES CONFEEEXCE. 277 

Capt. Smith. We intend to keep it up. sell one and perhaps buy 

t'SYO. 

Secretary Eedfield. The sale of a vessel is not an indication of 
going out of the business^ 

Capt. S3IITH. Xot in onr case, but there are individuals Avho have 
sold because they Avanted to go out of business. 

Secretary Eedfield. It is a case of management of your OAvn plant 
in what you consider is a profitable way to you!' 

Capt. Smith. Yes. sir. 

Dr. Smith. Considering (iloucester as a whole, has the fleet of 
fishing vessels been practically maintained during the last three or 
four years!' 

Capt. Smith. Xo. sir. 

Dr. Smith. Has there been a net loss? 

Capt. Smith. I think they have diminished some. 

Dr. Smith. Can you state the approximate amount of the loss? 

(\ipt. S:\iitii. Xo. The customhouse records would show that. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. E. ARCHER BRADLEY. 

^Ir. Bkadlet. Mr. Chairman, speaking about the fishing inside 
the 3-mile limit, at the time of the so-called treaty that was at- 
tempted, didn't Canada offer us the privilege of fishing within the 
3-mile limit if we would admit her fishing vessels, allow them to fish 
within that limit ( 

Chief Justice Hazex. Xo. 

Mr. Bradij=:y. I had the impression that they did. 

Secretary Eedfield. We are not so informed. 

Dr. S:mith. Do the Canadian trawlers fish within the 3-mile limit? 

Chief Justice Hazex. Xo. 

Dr. Smith. They only do shore fishing outside of that limit ? 

Mr. FouxD. Yes. 

Secretary Eedfield. We have a number of captains here, and I 
suppose they can ask questions as well as answer them. We shall 
be glad to solve any doubts that anybody may have, if we can do so, 
if there is an opportunity. 

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT 
GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. 

]Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words myself. 
Our discussion here has seemed to tend largely to the questions of 
l)roducing food at an economical point, cheapening food and also 
at the same time increasing the volume. You must take into con- 
sideration the fact that, while you ask the fishermen to produce food 
at a low price, what he is purchasing has been vastly increasing in 
price, and I don't hear anybody saying anything about reducing 
the price of what he is consuming. I would suggest that if what 
is here suggested goes into operation there are other people in- 
terested in the fishing business, who can not be heard today, and 
who might be injurecl. For instance, there is the man who makes 
the dories and has a large number of employees who get their 
livelihood by making dories. If this goes into effect he will make 
no dories in this section of the country. That will entirely disappear. 



278 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

We nuist also I'emeinber that, while we hnxe listened here to-daj^ 
to these gentlemen, we have not listened to the men who will be 
injured, or the class of fishing that will he injured, providing this 
should take place. The man who will be injured is the man in what 
we call our haddock fleet. We have not had any actual acting cap- 
tain of a trawl vessel who has spoken since you have had your 
hearings. You have had men who have been trawling but who 
have since adopted some other business. Therefore, his interest 
might be different, providing he is trawling at the present time. 

If we adopt these propositions, the sail-propelled vessels that take 
fish to Boston will not be owned in Gloucester. That may seem 
rather funny, but that vessel will go just where the salt banker has 
gone. Before the free fish we had a large banking fleet here. That 
fleet has diminished, until we have hardly any. We had a large 
number of what we termed here outside vessels, vessels owned by 
individuals and not by comjianies, that went fishing, salt banking. 
They decreased until we have only one. That one is owned by a 
gentleman who resides part of the time in the Ignited States and 
part of the time in Canada. 

Now, undoubtedly we avIU have a large fleet of beam trawlers, 
but if the Canadian beam trawler comes into our market on an even 
basis we won't have a great amount of extra fish in our market to 
supply the demands of those who have no fishing ^'essels. They will 
take their fish to the Boston market when they are good. If not 
good, they will keep them in their own market, and the man 
who owns a beam trawler in the United States will also own a 
fish plant. Therefore, the man who is suffering and woidd suffer 
from want of stock for the salt fish business, and for distribution 
through the country, is going to be no better supplied with stock 
than he Avas before. He is going to be in the same position. 

Now, relative to the cost of vessels, I am of the opinion that the 
cost of vessels in the United States and Canada to-day is nearly 
alike. But you must bear this fact in mind. Nova Scotia, after 
nearly four years in the war, has reached pretty nearly the peak in 
the cOvSt of her production. We have been in the war but one year. 
Our peak has not been reached yet. We have not reached the top 
cost of GUI' vessels. Therefore, our cost Avill increase, while their 
cost will pi'actically stay where it is. We produce vessels made en- 
tireh^ from oak, and. as has been said, they are nu)re valuable and 
will stand more strain. But remembei' that our best masters do not 
want to run a vessel when it is old. After a vessel is 5 or 6 years old 
our skippers; want a new one; and when a Nova Scotia vessel is 5 
or 6 years old it is not a very good vessel to go on the banks with, 
especially in the Avinter months. It would be injudicious to take it. 
So, really, there is not much difference in the life of the vessels. 
The Nova Scotia owner builds the best he can, but he has not the 
timber. We know that Avhere vessels are injured and go to a Nova 
Scotia port to repair, they are very much troubled to get the timber 
to repair our vessels with, except at great cost, in a way that Avill 
satisfy the owner of the vessel. If it is not done right the OAvner is 
liable to have it built all over again when it gets back to our own 
country, because he Avill not accept a softAvoocl vessel. 

It was not many years ago AAdien ProvincetoAvn, our neighboring- 
city across the bay, was a large producer of fish. That business has 



AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 279 

now been given up entii'ely. There is not unj production of fisli in 
the salt fish line, and we have gone out of it. Horace Greeley said 
to the young man to ''' go West." Well, the movement of the fishing- 
business has been just the reverse of that. It has gone eastward, and 
will go still farther eastward. We will be distributors of fish, large 
distributors, but how are we going to increase our supplies except 
by beam trawlers? That is the question. As I understand it, to-day 
we are importing three-fifths of the amount of fish we have used in 
the port for the last year. 

If we are to make any changes let us do it for the term of the war. 
All other economic propositions — and this is claimed to a certain 
extent to be an economic proposition — are based on one year after 
the war. Certainl)^ the United States does not Avant to make any 
sharp trade with Canada ; neither does Canada want to make a sharp 
trade with the United States Avhich will cause friction after the war 
is over. There certainly will be friction if there is anything put up 
but half-and-half. There will be friction if there is any talk of 
licenses. We will not be satisfied. If your commission should think 
best to recommend that this should be adopted, think of it. in the 
same way that you do of other business and have it terminate a year 
after the war. Then we won't make any agreement that will be 
irritating later on in our lives. 

Dr. S:mitii. Mr. Davis, will you kindly state whether we under- 
stand you correctly that the decline of the great salt bank fleet from 
large proportions to a single vessel has taken place since 1913? 

Mr. Davts. Largely, quite a bit since then, but not all. It started — 
well, the time of reciprocity was our first starting point. The idea 
of reciprocity was started and defeated a year or two befoi'e we had 
our free trade. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Fifty years ago ? 

Dr. Smith. Xo; the proposed reciprocity of 1911. 

Mr. Davis. That is what I refer to. 

Dr. Smith. I understood Capt. Benjamin Smith to say there had 
been no material change in the Gloucester fleet in the last three or 
four years, since the establishment of free fish? 

Capt. Smith. The banking fleet. Our change started when New- 
foundland shut us out. We did more business with Newfound- 
land with our salt bank fleet than we ever did with Canada. 

Dr. Smith. What was the year of the shutting out ? 

Capt. Smith. I think 1905. That was because Ave couldn't go in 
and get tackle, bait, and ship men in Newfoundland. That is what 
started it, and it has gone on gradually. 

Congressman Li'fkin. I think right after the defeat of the Hay- 
Boncl treaty. 

Mr. Found. I think you Avill find that in 1905 the HaA^-Bond treaty 
Avas defeated. 

Secretary Redfield. Capt. Smith, are your fishing vessels insured? 

Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Eedfield. What difi^erence in rates clo you pay between 
an American-made and a Canadian-made A^essel? 

Capt. Saiith. I think it is 1 per cent. Mr. Johnson, here, can say 
if I am not rioht. 



280 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN A. JOHNSON, BUSINESS OF MARINE 
INSURANCE, GLOUCESTER. 

Secretary Redfield. What is your name and business? 

Mr. Johnson. John A. Johnson, in the marine insurance business. 
insurance and marine insurance. 

Secretary Redfield. What is the difference in rates for a vessel 
of the same size and creAv, between an American-built vessel and a 
Nova Scotia built vessel of the same type ? 

Mr. Johnson. I do not have occasion to insure the hulls of Cana- 
dian vessels, but on cargoes we charge 1 per cent more on a Canadian 
vessel, on a trip, coming from Canada to Gloucester. 

Capt. SaiiTH. We have some Canadian hulls. John, that you in- 
sure, and you charge us 1 per cent more, on one hidl, at least, the 
Helen Ritcey. 

Secretary Redfield. The difference depends on the actual differ- 
ence in the hull, rather than upon the place of construction? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes; there is the point in regard to construction 
that has been brought out here to-clay, that an American-built ves- 
sel is much more able to stand the weather and the rocks. 

Secretary Redfield. In what respect? 

Mr. Johnson. It is built more strongly. I suppose the oak is a 
great deal stronger than the softw^ood that the Canadian vessel is 
iDuilt out of. 

Secretary Redfield. Is there any difference in design or in model, 
any difference of that sort, that might account for it? 

Mr. Johnson. That would not enter into it at all. 

Secretary Redfield. Your understanding is that there is a dif- 
ference of 1 per cent in the insurance? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The underwriters charge 1 i^er cent more, 
that being the point at issue, that the American-built vessel on the 
rocks will stand a great deal more pounding than the Canadian 
vessel. 

Secretary Redfield. Who are those underwriters? 

Mr. Johnson. The Boston Insurance Co. and the Providence &. 
Washington Insurance Co. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you loiow what the custom of Lloyd's is? 

Mr. Johnson. The English concern? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. Do you know what their custom is in 
that respect? 

Mr. Johnson. Xo; have no dealing with LloycFs. 

Secretary Redfield. Is the firm of Lloyd's represented in 
Gloucester? 

Mr. Johnson. It is not. 

Secretary Redfield. Your vessels would not come under any of 
their specifications? 

Mr. Johnson. No. they are not registered as Lloyd's would have it. 

SIGNING OF THE HALIFAX AGREEMENT. 

Mr. Charles Wonson. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Chief 
Justice Hazen a question. What was the objection to your collector 
at Halifax asking the captain of the American beam trawler to 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN" FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 281 

vohmtarilv sign an agreement which he was asked to observe because 
by-law your own beam trawlers are obliged to observe it? 

Chief Justice Hazex. The reason is that Ave have no jurisdiction 
outside of our own territorial waters, except in the case of vessels 
that clear from our own ports. If they are vessels from our own 
ports, and our own vessels, Ave can impose restrictions upon them; 
ijut we can not impose restrictions upon vessels clearing from other 
IDorts outside of our oAvn territorial waters. 

Mr. WoNSOx. I understand, sir: but I think you did not quite get 
the question. Supposing I Avas the collector of the port of Glouces- 
ter, and one of your Canadian beam traAvlers came in. Suppose Ave 
had a like law in this country and I asked him to voluntarily sign 
an agreement to abstain from fishing Avithin such a limit of the 
shore, Avhat would be the harm in that ? 

Chief Justice Hazex. In that case, your collector Avoidd be asking 
our Canadian captain to enter into an agreement Avhich the State 
of Massachusetts or the Government of the United States has no 
poAver to enforce, because you Avould have no jurisdiction outside of 
your territorial waters. You could ask him to do it. but there 
would be no means of making him do it. 

Mr. Woxsox. I understand, but I was asking Avhat the harm Avas. 
I suppose the man thought he Avas acting in the interests of his 
own country, and was justified. 

Chief Justice Hazex\ It would be an entirely useless agreement, 
because there Avould be no right to enforce it against an alien A^essel 
here. Your collector Avould haA^e no poAver to enforce it. 

Secretary Redfield. It aaouIcI be Avhat the laAvyers call ultra vires. 

Mr. Woxsox. Then you Avould take the stand that no man should 
do a thing for the public good unless he is obliged to ? 

Chief Justice Hazex^. A man should not require a thing to be done 
that is outside of his authority. It would really be an impertinence. 

Mr. Woxsox. There was no pressure brought to bear on the cap- 
tain. Avas there? 

Chief Justice Hazex^ Not that I know of. I don't knoAv Avhat 
occurred. 

Mr. Woxsox. There Avas a statement made in Boston that there was 
pressure brought to bear. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Well, the collector had no such right, any- 
Avay. He avouIcI be acting in excess of his authority. The regula- 
tion, I may say to you. Avas put into effect bj^ the Canadian GoA^ern- 
ment. There Avas an immense deal of opposition among our 
schooners to the operation of the steam traAvlers. They claim that 
the steam traAvlers came in and operated outside our shores, made our 
ports their base, and worked destruction to our fishermen using other 
vessels; that by contact Avith gears and nets a good deal of destruc- 
tion Avas caused; and, in order to protect our own fishermen as best 
Ave could, as far as Ave had authority to do it, we said that no steam 
traAvlers from our ports should be alloAvecl to operate unless they 
agreed to operate 12 miles outside. 

Mr. Wox-sox. I understand, but there has been a strong intimation 
that the captain of the American beam trawler Avas refused clearance, 
you Avill remember, and that is a thing that I wanted to clear up. 



282 AMEEICAlSr-CAN^ADIAlSr FISHERIES COISrPEREjSrCE. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think that would be possible. If 
so, it was through an absolute error on the part of the collector. 

OBTAINING COAL IN CANADIAN POETS. 

Mr. FiJEDEEiCK L. Davis. I would like to ask the chief justice a 
question. Under the general navigation laws I understand that 
your country will allow an American steamer, a fishing vessel, enough 
coal to reach its own country, without any license? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Under the treaty of 1818 you can not get 
coal in our ports. The treaty of 1818, which is the treaty that 
gives you rights, allows you to go into our ports for four purposes, 
and for four purposes only — for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. 
But I have no doubt if one of your vessels got into port and needed 
coal we would be A'ery glad to give you the right to get it. As a 
matter of right, however, joii can not take it. 

Mr. Davis. Then the collector, in order to do the thing correctlj^ 
Avoulcl have to get a pei-niit from the Government ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. Under the treaty of 1818, if such a vessel 
desired to get coal, word Avould have to be sent to Ottawa, stating 
the circumstances, and permission would have to be obtained. That 
would be under the treaty of 1818, which was entered into long be- 
fore the Dominion of Canada had existence. 

Mr. Marsi-iall. Will you tell me, Chief Justice, Avhether your 
people are desirious of exercising the privileges of our ports, in the 
way suggested ? Do they want that privilege, and urge it ? 

Chief Justice Hazen. There is a great deal of difi'erence of opinion 
among our fishermen, as there is here ; but, on the whole, I think our 
fishermen value the privilege of coming into your markets. 

CLOSING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. 

Congressman Lufkin. Mr. Secretary, have you any idea at about 
what time the finding of your board will be finally made? 

Secretary Eedfield. None Avhatever. 

Congressman Lufkin. Within six months? 

Secretary Eedfield. It will depend on how long we take on the 
Pacific. 

Congressman Lufkin. You plan to have other hearings on the 
Pacific coast later in the spring? 

Secretary Eedfield. Yes, sir; and the dates have not been defi- 
nitely determined upon with regard to the Pacific coast hearings. We 
plan to go to Seattle and other points on Puget Sound, to British 
Cohmibia points, and perhaps to Alaska points; and, while this^ 
matter is up, let me say that we shall be glad, now or later, through 
you or others, Mr. Congressman, to receive any statements of fact 
which anybody may consider pertinent in the matter. Anything 
sent to us will be given full consideration and will be made a portion 
of the record. I also desire, on behalf of the commission, to ex- 
press our appreciation of the courtesy shown to us by the Master 
Mariners Association, and I shall request the secretary of the com- 
mission to enter upon the record the unanimous thanks of the com- 
mission to the Master Mariners Association. If I knew that any 
officer of that association was present, I should be very glad to ex- 



< 



AMEEICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 283 

tend to him our thanks in person. As it is, we are all grateful for 
the courtesies shown; and we desire also to express our thanks to the 
officers of the city of Gloucester for their kind entertainment of the 
commission at luncheon to-day. We are notified in advance that 
our friends of the board of trade have similar hospitable intentions 
toward us this evening, and, as the time has not 3^et arrived, I will 
simply say that " for what we are about to receive we are duly 
thankful!"" 

I appreciate, gentlemen, as all the members of the commission do, 
that this matter comes very near your hearts and thoughts. I beg- 
yon to believe that there is no one of the American commissioners 
who does not have a keen personah feeling of pride in the history 
and the work of the men of Gloucester. It is one of the fine stories 
of American life and American history. What Gloucester has been, 
what her men liave achieAed and suffered, forms one of the finest 
pages of our story. We are not likely to take any step which we 
would conceive to be harmful to such a community, with such a rec- 
ord and such deserts. The magnificent story of Gloucester makes 
a strong appeal to the hearts and minds of the American people. Of 
course, we are all bound to consider the interests of America, for, 
after all, we have only the right to exist and prosper as we serve the 
American people. The moment you and I serve ourselves first and 
the American people second.^ we have begun the process of self- 
elimination and we shall inevitably be eliminated out of existence 
through the normal processes of economic life. The parties at in- 
terest in this matter live all over the American Continent, and are 
not confined to any part of it. Some of the parties in interest are 
not yet born ; others are j^assing to a higher sphere. But Ave are here 
on behalf of the American people, and the men without whose pur- 
chases and the women without whose cooking Gloucester would 
starve to death are the primary people to be considered, of course. 
Without their support, without doing for them supremely, Gloucester 
must wither up and die. It is because you have serA^ed them well 
in the past, and because they look to you to serve them well in the 
future that Gloucester has been great, and in the future Avill continue 
to be great. 

I again assure you of our appreciation of your goodness to ns. 
In behalf of our friends from Canada, I thank you for your services 
to them. We knoAv perfectly Avell Avhat the past has had of annoy- 
ance, troubles, anxiety, and uncertainty to you on their account. They 
noAA^ come here in the most cordial spirit of helpful good will. We 
Avho haA^e had the privilege of living with them, so to speak, for days, 
liaA'e drunk deep at the fountain of kindliness and helpfulness Avhich 
flows from them in every Avay. I ask you to belieA'e of them that 
their every thought is to be helpful. 

It has been suggested to me, as it Avas suggested by a gentleman 
here to-day, that this thing should, if possible, b^ arranged on a 
continental basis, that we ought no more to have jealousy and 
friction across an imaginary line, any more than there should be 
jealousy existing betAveen Massachusetts and New York, between 
Kentucky and Tennessee, or betAveen Texas and Ncav Mexico, to-day. 
Such jealousy and friction did once exist, a^ou know, between people 
of those sections. There Avas a time Avhen Massachusetts did not get on 
Avell Avith XeAv York, Avhen Vermont and New York squabbled, when 



284 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

even Tennessee sought to impose a tariff on the rest of the country; 
and I myself, a commercial traveler, had to run out of the State 
of Virginia because I did not have a license to do business in the 
State of Virginia. Those things, as Ave look back on them to-day, 
seem strange, as belonging to days of small things. So let us hope 
that in some way, however partial, Ave may be able to live a larger 
life in the days coming, as an outcome of problems confronting us 
to-day. I Applause.] 

CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chier Justice Hazen. I simply wish to say, Mr. Secretary, that I 
thoroughly agree Avith the Avords so Avell expressed by yourself with 
reference to the courteous treatment that Ave liaA'e receiAed at the 
liands of the ])eople of the city of Gloucester. We are especially in- 
debted to the Master Mariners Association. Avho ha\^e placed this 
hall at our dis))osa] to-daA^ and haA'e done all they could to proAdde 
us Avith \ery facility for having a Avell-conducted and interesting- 
meeting. We are also indebted to the mayor and city council of the 
city of (irloucester, not onh^ for the cordial nature of the reception 
they ga\'e us on our arriA^al in the city this morning but also for 
the verv charming hospitality they extended to us at the noon hour ; 
and Ave shall be further indebted to the members of the board of trade 
for the entertainment that Avill be given us to-night. In fact, I think 
if my colleagues and myself stayed longer in the United States 
we Avould l)e killed Avith kindness. It Avould be a very pleasant 
death to die, you knoAv, but, still, Ave don't Avant to be put to that 
death until Ave haA^e finished our labors and have made a report, 
Avliich I hope Avill be acceptable to both countries. 

I Avish to say that from the very outset the Secretary of Com- 
merce and the gentlemen associated Avith him liaA^e vieAved this matter 
from a very broad, liberal, and statesmanlike standpoint. They 
realize, as Ave Avho live to the north of you on this continent realize, 
that Ave and those Avho come after us are going to be neighbors on 
this continent as long, I trust, as time endures. We all like to live 
on terms of amity and good Avill Avith our neighbors, and, as you are 
our neighbors and Ave yours, Ave desire to live on terms of amity 
and good Avill Avith you. We have different political institutions, 
liA'-e under different forms of gOA^ernment. Each has a good deal to 
recommend it: each does not contain everything desirable; each is 
not the best in cA^ery respect. 

There are features in our form of government Avhich Ave prefer 
to yours; there are features of your form of government that you 
prefer to oiu's. But I think there is ample room for the friendly 
and neighliorly development of our tAvo great communities on the 
North American Continent. In trade matters Ave must ahvays be 
actiA^ely associated, as Ave are in social matters to-day. EA'ery day 
there is marrying and giving in marriage betAveen the countries to 
the north and the south. We have acquired an annexed many of 
your best citizens in that Avay. in the same Avay that you have an- 
nexed and acquired many of the best of ours. The same blood runs 
in the veins of many of the people of this country and many of the 
people of ours, and, AAdiile you have many things Ave desire. Ave 
also have many things that you desire. There ought to be the best 



AMEBICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 285 

of mutual respect and good feeling between us ; and in all our nego- 
tiations I am sure we shall be animated not by the narrow desire 
on the i^art of each to trj^ to take advantage of the other, but b.y 
the broader and bigger desire of trying to do what is best for hu- 
manity, what is best for the progress of the people of both coun- 
tries and of the world. 

I shall remember for a long time, with feelings of the deepest 
pleasure, my visit to Gloucester to-day. Gloucester has been known 
to me, as to many on this continent and outside of this continent, 
as one of the cities of the old Bay State whose sons from the time 
of the earliest settlement of the country have gone forth to reap 
a harvest from the seas. They have done much in the Avay of pro- 
viding food products for the people of the community in which they 
live and have also in the past been in a large measure the nursery 
of the Xavy of the United States. 

Living myself in a maritime community, down by tlie Bay of 
Fundy, not very many miles from the State of Massachusetts, and 
being tiie descendant of men who came from England to this Bay 
State, as the Puritan ancestors of many of you did, because they 
wanted to live in a better and freer atmosphere than that of the old 
land, who subsequently left this Bay State and went and settled on 
the rocky shores of the Bay of Fundy, I feel that I am connected 
with 3^ou and that I and my family have been connected with you 
through many generations, because before the war of the Ameri- 
can Revolution, before the slight difference of opinion that occurred 
between George Washington and George III, my ancestors were 
living at St. John, carrying on business there, shipping fish, lumber, 
masts, and other commodities, to their firm in Newburyport, where 
they Avere established, as well as in the city of St. John. 

I am delighted to have met you here to-day. I have heard things 
that have placed questions concerning the fisheries before me ina 
light that I did not understand before. I think Ave members of this 
commission are all learning as we go along from day to day. The 
questions before us for discussion and the views of genetlemen in- 
terested in these fishing questions have been presented to us in a fair, 
moderate, gentlemanly, and admirable manner in every respect. We 
are going to take the American commissioners on to Canada, leavino- 
here Saturday night. They Avill first go down to St. John, Avhere 
they will have an opportunity to meet the representatives of the fish- 
ing interests in the maritime Provinces, and no doubt views will be 
expressed on this question that are diilerent from the view^s ex- 
pressed here. I- only hope they will be -expressed as moderately, as 
fairly, as intelligently, and as Avell as they have been expressed in 
Boston and here to-day. 

A little later on, as has been stated by Secretary Redfield, we Avill 
go to the Pacific coast, to hear at first hand about the conditions 
along that coast. We will first proceed to Washington, then to 
British Columbia, hearing from the American and the Canadian 
fishermen, and A^^ll no doubt go as far north as Prince Rupert and 
Ketchikan, and perhaps to other ports of Alaska, for the purpose of 
obtaining the vi^Avs of the people there, as Ave are noAv obtaining the 
vieAvs of the people in the East. After that Ave Avill sit down to 
meditate upon and digest what Ave have received, and, while no man 



286 AMEEiOAN-OANADIAN PISITEEIES CONFERENCE. 

cjin (ell whether or not we shall arrive al an arraiij<emeiit that will 
l)e satisfaetory (o both countries, if we do not do so it will not be be- 
cause we shall not try to do so. It will not be because we 
are not impressed with the necessity and desirability, not only 
from the standi)oint of the continent, but from the standpoint 
of the world as well, of arrivin<>- at a conclusion which shall remove 
some oround for in-itation that has occurred between yourselves and 
youi- less ])opul()Us neighbor to the north. 

I Ihank you, oentlenien, very heartily and cordially, in behalf of 
the Canadian meml)ei's of this conmiission, for the very kind re- 
ce|)ti()n you have accorded to us in this ancient and historic city of 
Gloucester. | Applause.] 

Mr. W. A. Eeeo. Mr. Chairman, I feel that your records would 
iu)t be complete if 1 did not at this time, as secretary of the Glouces- 
ter Boai'<l of 'I'rade, say just a few words, voicing the sentiments of 
every person in the city of Gloucester, of appreciaticm of the great 
honor and compliment which we feel that the conunission has paid 
(IS in coming to (}lou(tester. We have no golden key of the city to 
offer you ; but 1 A'oice the feeling of every official and of every 
indi\ idual in the city of Gloucester when I say that we tiiist that 
your reception luis been all that you would desire: and I assure the 
honored gentlemen representing Canada that those whom they 
]'epresent, whom we have in the past seen fit to refer to as cousins, 
will in the future be accepted by us in the fullest serse of the term 
as brothers. | Applause. | 

Secretary Ivkdfikld. We will now adjourn, to meet in St. John, 
New Brunswick, on Tuesday next. 

(This closed the hearing.) 



I 



HEARINGS AT ST. JOHN, N. B. 

St. John, Xew, Brunswick. February J, 1918. 

The St. John hearing of the American-Canadian Fisheries Con- 
ference was held in the equity court room, beginning at 10 a. m. 

Present : Hon. W. C. Eeclfield, Secretary of Commerce of the 
United States: Hon. Edwin F. Sweet, Assistant Secretary of Com- 
merce of -the Ignited States: Dr. H. M. Smith, Conmiissioner of 
Fisheries of the United States; Hon. J. D. Hazen. Chief Justice 
of the Province of New Brunswick: "W. A. Found. Esq., Superin- 
tendent of Fisheries of Canada : E. T. Quigley, Esq.. Secretary 
of the American delegation : Arnold Robertson. Esq., of the British 
Embassy at Washington. Secretary of the Canadian delegation. 

Among those in attendance at this hearing, in addition to the 
members of the American and Canadian <lelegations to the confer- 
ence, were the folloAving: 

S. Y. Wilson, i-epreseiu iuK llie Leonard Fisliei'ies of Halifax, and also 
l)i-esi(leiit of the Canadian Fisheries Association. 

W. P.. Ki'ittain. port fishinjr overseer. 

(reorge Itobin.son of ( 'iinil)rid,!ie. New F>i-nns\viclv. i-epresentinp.' tlie 
seneral fishinfr ofhces. 

.1. C. Chesley. local a.iient of the Marine and Fisheries r)p])artnient. 

Havel<)Cl< Wilson, St. .John, in.spector of pickled fish. 

Walter Leonard, president of the Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.). 

F. S. Warner, Xew Yoi-k. piu-chasing a.aent foi- the Booth Fisheries. 

.T. F. Calder. of Canipobello, inspector of fisheries. 

M. M. Gardner, of Ltmenbvu'g, Nova Scotia. 

B. A. Smith of Oloiicestei-, representinfr the Gorton Pew Fishing 
Company. 

Alfred H. Brittain, managing director of the Maritime Fishing Cor- 
poration (Ltd.), with general offices in Montreal and branch offices in 
Cau.so, Digl)y, Nova Scotia. 

R. E. Armstrong, secretai-y of the Board of Trade. 

Harry A. Belyea. Hilton Pielyea. Robert E. Wilson, W. A. Spence,~ 
Percy Lomax, .]. .L Melanson, of St. .John. 

.John .Jackson, of St. .John. 

Howard EUeson, St. .John. 

Elmery I^ambert, Deer Island. New Brunswick. 

Snmner Hartford, Deer Island, New Brunswick. 

T. R. Ferguson, chairman Canadian Board of Steamships, Ottawa. 

H. B. Short, manager Maritime Fish Corporation at Digby. 

Fred L. Davis, president Gloucester (Mass.) Board of Trade. 

Scott E. Morrill, attorney. 

Hon. Mr. Redfield made the folloAving statement: 
Mr. Commissioners and gentlemen, it is at the unanimous request 
of the commissioners from the T'nited States that our friend and 
colleague. Chief Justice Hazen, will preside at all the meetings of 
the commission held in the Dominion of Canada, and I wish to make 
it known that it is because we earnestly desire that he do so that 
he is presiding to-day as chairman. 

287 



288 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazex. At the meetings which we huve held in the 
United States our friend Mr. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce for 
the United States, has acted as chairman at my suggestion. I am 
sorry that he will not continue to act as chairman, because the way 
in which he has presided has been most satisfactory in every respect. 
It is hardly necessary for me to outline the object of this confer- 
ence or the meeting here to-day. You gentlemen of course are aware 
that under the treaty of 1818 the only rights which American 
vessels possess in Canadian ports are the riglit to enter these ports 
for shelter, for having repairs made to their vessels, for obtaining 
Avood, and for obtaining water. These are the only four purposes 
for which an American fishing vessel has the right to enter a Cana- 
dian port. An attempt was made to extend that right by treaty 
about 30 jenrs ago — or over 30 years ago. Commissioners ap- 
pointed by both countries entered into an agreement under which 
if the United States would give free admission to Canadian fish in 
American i^orts, Canada would give American fishing vessels in her 
ports practically the same rights as the fishing vessels of her own 
country possessed, i. e., the right to come in not only for the four 
purposes mentioned but for buying bait, supplies of all Idnds, of 
shipping their creAvs, of transshipping their fish back to the United 
States, and for other purposes. 

This agreement entered into Avas not to be in the form of a treaty, 
and did not meet Avith the approval of the Congress of the United 
States and therefore became ineifective. But Avhile the matter was 
under consideration b}' Congress, the Parliament of Canada passed 
legislation under Avhich they had the poAver to issue licenses to 
American fishermen — Avhat haA'e been knoAvn as modus A'ivendi 
licenses. This Avas passed as a temporary measure, pending the 
ratification by Congress of the agreement, and for 30 years the 
GoA''ernment of Canada has gone on year by year passing an order- 
in-council extending for the next year the power to grant these 
licenses. Under that, American fishing vessels have had the right to 
take out Canadian licenses, paying therefor $1.50 per ton of the 
registered tonnage of their A^essels, and haAdng taken out that license 
could come into our ports for the purposes outlined, shipping crews, 
buying bait, transshipping their goods through our country in bond. 
That has been merely a temporary matter and this priAdlege has 
been granted to the fishermen of the United States year by year by 
the grace o'f the Canadian Government for a period of 30 years. 
That is only giA^en to A'essels propelled by sails. Vessels driven by 
steam or propelled by motive poAver of any sort other than the Avind 
have no right to take out that license, and to-day Avhen fishing A^essels 
more and more eA^er}^ year are being propelled b}^ steam or other 
motlA^e power it will be seen that the advantage to be obtained from 
these licenses by the American fishermen are getting gradually less, 
as they are confined as I have said to vessels ]3ropelled by the Avincl. 
In 1913 the Government of the United States, under the Under- 
Avood tariff, placed fish upon the free list. That was the considera- 
tion that the Government of the United States Avas to give under the 
treatj^ of 30 years ago, in consideration of our giAdng them the 



AMEEICA]Sr-CAN"ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 289 

privileges of our ports; and having placed fish npon the free list a 
few years ago the Government of the United States connnnnicated 
with the Government of Canada and snggested that as fish had been 
placed upon the free list in the United States, and Canada had 
obtained practically what was sought in the treaty of AVashington 
30 years ago, that Canada might in return give to the American 
fishermen the extended privileges in our ports that would have been 
given them in that treaty. In reply to that the Government of 
Canada pointed out that this right of admission of free fish was not 
given as any special favor to Canada, but was a matter simply of 
tariff policy on the part of the party then in power, that there was 
no guarantee of its being permanent — it might be decided ;is a matter 
of domestic policy to change the tariff and to place duty upon fish 
going into the United States — and that the matter was simply one 
of domestic policy and adopted by the United States from its own 
standpoint and not as the result of any treaty with Canada and 
Great Britain. 

We also pointed out that while for 30 years we had l>een giving 
admission to the American fishermen to our ports, and now the 
United States was giving our fish free admission to their markets, 
that our fishermen were not getting the full advantage owing to 
certain navigation and customs laws prevailing in the United States ; 
that while we had free admission for fish, our fishing vessels could 
not take their catches to an American port from the fishing- 
grounds — they were compelled by the United States laws first of all 
to come to a Canadian port and transfer their catch into a merchant 
ship, or else the fishing vessel having come into a Canadian port was 
compelled to register as a commercial vessel before proceeding to the 
port of the United States and there sell its catch ; and that this to a 
great extent delayed and hampered our fishermen, and that more 
than that, having sold their catch in a port of the United States, our 
vessels could not clear directly for the fishing grounds — they were 
unable to go by the shortest cut — but had to clear to a Canadian port 
and clear from there to the fishing grounds, thus practically going 
by way of the two sides of a triangle rather than by the short cut- 
by way of the hypothenuse; that in endeavoring to preserve our 
lobster fisheries by close seasons along our coast Ave were hamj^ered 
by the fact that American fishing smacks came across during the 
close season and just outside of the 3-mile limit, which is the extent 
of our jurisdiction, they there caught lobsters, came into our ports 
at night for shelter as they had a right to do under the treaty of 
1818, and that our fishermen had the pleasure of sitting on the shore 
and looking across the 3~mile limit and seeing the American fisher- 
men catching the lobsters that we were endeavoring to protect by 
our legislation. 

I uiay say that we had hardly stated this fact at the first of our 
conferences before the Secretar}^ of Commerce said that the Con- 
gress of the Ignited States would, in his opinion, pass legislation 
which would make it impossible for American vessels to engage in 
this jn-actice in the future. We pointed these things out to the 
United States, and as a result of that the Government "of the United 
States suggested that a commission be appointed of representatives 
of both countries for the purpose of holding a conference and dis- 
51950—18 19 



290 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES COiSTFEEENCE. * 

cussing these matters and all other matters outstanding with regard 
to the fisheries between the two countries, and in compliance with 
that request of the Government of the United States, they having 
appointed a member of President Wilson's Cabinet, the Assistant 
Secret a I'v of Commerce. Mr. Sweet, and the leader of their fishery 
department, Dr. Smith. I Avas appointed by the Canadian Govern- 
ment, and associated with me are Mr. Desbarats, the deputy minister 
of naval affairs, and Mr. Found, the superintendent of fisheries. I 
am sorry that Mr. Desbarats is unable, in consequence of illness, to 
be here in St. John and was not with us in Massachusetts during the 
last week. This conference commenced its sessions in Washington 
some weeks ago. We spent about 10 days in that city. We had a 
good deal of information submitted to us, and I may saw that we 
have not come here to teach the fishermen; we have come to get 
instructions and to find out what their views are with respect to 
these questions. As was natural, in the United States Ave found a 
difference of opinion. There were people engaged in the fishing 
trade there most anxious that the door should be opened as widely 
as possible — that no restriction should be placed on any Canadian 
vessel taking fish into the United States; Ave found others Avho 
feared that if these i-estrictions Avere removed the fishing interests 
AYould practically be transferred to Canada and injury done to the 
fishing interests of Gloucester and other places in the United States. 
Some Avent to the extent of saying they ])referred to have the privi- 
leges cut off altogether of admission into Canadian ports rather than 
giA'e to Canadian vessels the I'ight to come unrestricted into their 
ports. 

The whole matter Avas discussed most fairly — there Avere differ- 
ences of opinion and honest differences of opinion. Having obtained 
as far as Ave could the vieAvs of the fishermen in Boston and in 
Gloucester. Ave haAe come on to St. John for the purpose of hearing 
the vieAvs of those who are interested in the industry in this part of 
the country, and if necessary to do so Ave can hold further riieetings 
in the Maritime Provinces. This is only a part of the duties of the 
counnission. as Ave have to deal Avith questions on the Pacific coast, 
to a great extent similar to the differences existing here. Very large 
fishhig operations are carried on in the Avaters to the north. I may 
say, that Avliile on the Atlantic coast Canadian fishing vessels can 
not clear directly to the fishing grounds from United States ports, 
I find rather a different construction placed on the laAv on the 
Pacific coast, and Canadian fishing vessels Avhich on the Avay to the 
north come into Ketchikan from that port do clear directly to the 
fishing grounds. They are cleared by the collector of customs. So 
that a different policy prevails on the Avestern coast from the policy 
that prevails on the Atlantic coast. But apart from those questions 
on the Pacific, Avhich are of as nnich interest there as on the Atlantic 
coast to-day, British Columbia being the greatest fish-producing 
ProA'ince in Canada. Ave have questions in regard to the protection of 
the halibut industry on that coast. No halibut are noAv caught 
Avithin the territorial Avaters and the fishermen have to go farther 
north. The industry is being overfished and there is great danger 
of it being destroyed. The matter can only be regulated interna- 
tionally, because the fishing takes place beyond the jurisdiction of 



AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 291 

the United States and Canada, and the matter can only be controlled 
by an arrangement between the Governments of the two countries. 

Then the important question of the fisheries of the Fraser River, 
the breeding ground of the sock-eye salmon on the Pacific coast — the 
most valuable fisheries on the coast. These fisheries are being de- 
pleted very rapidly and unless something can be done by agreement 
between the two countries there is every probability that the salmon 
fishing on the Fraser River will in the course of a few years be a 
thing of the past. The salmon going up the Fraser River to spawn 
die before returning to the sea — that being one of the laws of Nature. 
In going up the Fraser River the salmon pass through American 
territorial Avaters along the coast of the State of Washington below 
the British Columbia boundary line, and along that coast all sorts 
of traps have been set for the purpose of catching them, w^th the 
result that you can hardly conceive how it is possible for a salmon 
to get past at all, and the salmon who do get past and get to the 
Fraser River are met there in a season when drifting is permitted — - 
with boats and nets that cross and recross one another — practically 
all the way from the estuary of the Fraser River up to the bridge 
at New Westminster, and the only chance for the fish to pass is 
during the weekly close of 42 hours. The result is that it will be 
only a matter of a few years until that industry disappears, unless 
regulations and laws are framed and enforced by both countries for 
the purpose of protecting these fish on their way to the river and in 
the riA^er, and one of the duties we have to perform is to consider 
that Avhole question — go to British Columbia, get the advice of peo- 
ple in Canada and the United States, and consider what is to be 
done for the preservation of that industry Avhich is of A^ery great 
importance to the people of the Avestern country. 

We have also had brought before us questions of other fisheries, 
and we want to say to 3^ou gentlemen interested in the fishing indus- 
try we will be very glad to hear your views regarding ixnj subject 
relating to fisheries, in Avhich you may be interested. We have vieAvs 
regarding the sardine fishery, and the fisheries in Lake Champlain, 
where it appears that the States of Vermont and NeAv York have 
abolished seining, and the Canadians are continuing the practice. 
It is almost the converse of what has been done Avith lobster fishing 
on our coast. We have eA'^en had questions brought before us Avith 
regard to the seal industry in the Pribilof Islands, and T think it 
Avould be Avell to hear the vieAvs regarding the shad fisheries, which 
have been growing less of late years, and which have not shoAvn the 
increase which I hoped they Avould from the establishment of the 
shad hatchery along the River St. John. The shad is a very delicate 
fish and there has not been the same effect in replenisliing fisheries 
with it as with the salmon. 

I think it is the first time in the history of diplomatic relations 
that a comniision composed of citizens of both countries has met in 
joint conference. As Secretary Redfield has described the matter 
it is open diplomac}^ We are not trying to get the advantage of the 
United States and they do not wish to get the better of us. We 
desire to come to an arrangement fairly in the interests of both coun- 
tries, in the interests of that great heritage given to us m the seas, 
and in the interests of the conservation of food so much desired at 
the present time. We Avant an arrangement — as a gentleman in 



292 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFEEENOE. 

Boston said — on a M)-M basis wliicli will be an achanlago to both 
countries, from which both countries will reap advantage, and one 
which will be on the whole to the nnitual advantage of both. I might 
say that both in Boston and Gloucester I extended an invitation to 
fishing industries there to come to St. John and 1 see that Mr. Smith, 
Avho is a representative of the lai-gest lish distributing house in the 
Ignited States, has accepted that invitation. I will be very glad if 
Mr. Smith will himself take any part in the i)roceedings that he 
thinks desirable. 

STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDEIELD. 

Secretary Kedfield. On behalf of the commissioners of the X"^nited 
States, I verj^ cordially concnr in the views submitted by Mr. Chief 
Jnstice Hazen. Wo feel very strongly that it is more than desirable 
that some arrangement l)e permanently made whereby the officers 
and crew of a Canadian \essel shall feel at home and welcome 
in an American port, and that our officers and crews shall in 
their turn feel perfectly comfortable and hapi)y and welcome 
in a Canadian port. It ,is impressied npon us that the whole 
world to-day is in need of food ; that the question of the food 
snpply is one npon wdiieh people are thinking as they have never 
thought before; that the meat snpply of the world is menaced, and 
it may be long years before we shall get back, if we ever do. to 
Avhere the Avorld stood five yeai's ago as regards the supply of meat; 
that under these circumstances it may be a necessary part of onr 
fntnre life to look more largely to the sea than ever before. That 
c(mdition is impressing itself not only npon the mass of the people of 
the Ignited States and of Canada, but npon the people of Great 
Britain and France and the other continental countries of Enrope. 
Furthermore, you of Canada and we of the United States are en- 
gaged in the same great cause — our sons are fighting on the same 
battle fields for the same ideals, for the same puri)oses with one 
conunon aim — one connnon great enemy threatens us all. If (Jer- 
many shall secure, as (lermany avows her desire to secure, dominion 
over the Avorld's sea, then (xermany will threaten Halifax and St. 
John and Boston and New York alike. 

Thus being united in the greatest of all struggles, it seems to us 
normal and right that we should learn what the relatively small 
things are which cause to one or another of oui- fellow citizens ex- 
jiense, trouble, and annoyance, in order that we may if possible 
remove those causes of friction and live together in oui- daily occu- 
pations in that way which shall be most profitable to everybody, 
most productive to everybody, having in mind the people of both 
conntries rather than any interest in both conntries, ha\'ing in mind 
the common need of the connnon man and woman all over the two 
great nations for food, for abnnchince of it at a reas(mable price. 
We recognize, of course, perfectly well that a great purchasing and 
distribnting business like that must bring to those engaged in it a 
righteous and a proper and a continuous, and as far as may be in 
human affairs, a certain remuneration, but Ave also recognize that it 
is a business in which all the population of all the conntries are inter- 
ested snpremeh'. It is a matter which affects the very national life 
itself mnch more so than it has e\er affected it in the past, and our 



AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 293 

desire is to look at it in the broadest possible way and deal with it 
in the most generous spirit of common good fellowship. 

Chief Justice Hazex. When we were in Boston and Gloucester, it 
was contended on behalf of the fishermen there that the men who 
fished from the ports of Xova Scotia could carry on their business 
more cheaply than the men who fished from Gloucester — that their 
vessels cost less, they paid less wages, and their supplies cost less: 
and in consequence of all that they would be in a position to under- 
sell the American fishermen or cause them to transfer their business 
to Canada. It was contended at Gloucester that an American fishing- 
vessel of 100 tons would cost very much more than one built in 
Canada. The claim was put forward that it would cost more, because 
it was better built — built of oak. Avhile ours were built of soft wood — 
and the first cost would be very much greater to the inhabitant of 
the Ignited States than to the inhabitant of Canada. There also was 
informati(!n that the American vessel would last longer than a 
Canadian vessel — that the latter was considered old at six years, and 
an American vessel uiight be cheaper in the long rmi. What I want 
to get is exact information regarding the cost of vessels in Canada, 
the wages that are paid, and the cost of supplies. Mv. Gardner, as 
a representative of the fishing industries of Lunenburg, could yon 
give us some infonnation on these points ? 

STATEMENT BY MR. M. M. GARDNER, REPRESENTING FISHING 
INDUSTRIES OF LUNENBURG. 

^Ir. Gakdxei!. I can give you information as the questions come; 
us to the cost of vessels. Mr. Chairman, we pay a contract price for 
a vessel's hull and spars in our shipyards of $18,000 to $22,000. I 
do not know how that compares with the American cost. There is no 
doubt about it that the oak put in some of the American vessels may 
be of bettei- quality than the wood that we have, although we desire 
to get as much of the hard wood as we can get into the vessels. It 
has also been contended that our vessels at six or nine years are old. 
Well, some of the American vessels have been lasting longer — those 
are well-known facts. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You say the cost to-day of building a 100-ton 
schooner with its masts — that does not include sails — would be from 
$18,000 to $22,000; what would that be built of? 

Air. Gardxek. The floor timber would be of hardwood^of oak and 
beech. Her top planking would be of soft wood. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Hardwood obtained in Canada ( 

Mr. Gardxer. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazex. What is your opinion as to the life of a ves- 
sel of that sort as compared with one constructed of oak? 

Air. Gardxer. I presume the American \essel would have a 
Longer life, although some of our vessels at 9 years of age appear to 
be as good as a vessel quite new. Some of the wood seenis to be more 
lasting than some of the vessels built of the same material may be at 
<• years. 

Chief Justice Hazex. When you speak of the price do you mean 
the price to-day or before the war? 

Air. Gardxer. I am speaking of to-day — vessels in which we are 
interested which we have contracted for for $22,000. 



294 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCB. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Has there been an advance in the cost of 
late years? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, indeed; that same vessel could be contracted 
for for $12,000 in 1912 or 1913. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Now, with regard to wages, will you tell 
us the system that prevails in Lunenburg for the payment of wages ? 
Perhaps you had better tell us first about the outfitting of the vessels. 

Mr. Gardner. The sails — Ave use the imperial cotton duck made in 
American markets. At the present time our wire rigging is all })ur- 
chased in Canada. Before the war we got the English wire. At 
that time the wire manufactured in Canada wasnot as good as that 
manufactured to-day. I am informed that they now have English 
wire makers who have given them the way of nniking the wire simi- 
lar to the English make. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how the cost of wire goods to- 
day compares with what is paid in the United States? 

Mr. Gardner. No, I do not know, sir. I know that the cost of 
wire to-day is just about double what it was before the war. 

The dories which the fishermen use are most of them built in 
Shelburne and Lunenburg. I understand that the greater numbei 
of the American vessels buy Shelburne dories. I do not think am 
of them come to Lunenbui-g. 

As to the wages, Mr. Chairman, our men are paid on Avhat we call 
one-half lay — that is, half the stock of the vessel. They deduct from 
the gross stock of the vessel the charges for bait and of the curing 
of the fish, and one-half of the net stock is divided to the men and to 
the vessel. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Hoav about the officers? 

Mr. Gardner. The captain receives 5 per cent of one-half of the net 
stock, together with 24 per cent from the gross stock. The cook is 
paid by the men from their share wages from $100 to $125 per 
month. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Who pays for the provisions ? 

Mr. Gardner. The vessel OAvners. The vessel OAvners supply every- 
thing that goes on board the vessel. The men simply go on board the 
vessel and catch the fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. First of all they deduct the expenses of the 
vessel ? 

Mr. Gardner. No, sir; only these charges — the bait, the cost of 
drying the fish, 2^ per cent commission for the captain and the Avages 
of two young men or boys — probably 18 or 19 — they take Avith them 
to dress the fish. Those are the charges deducted from the AA-hole 
catch of the vessel. Then it is divided in two and the men take 
one-half and the vessel one-half; but the vessel must pay out of 
its one-half for the food, dories, lines, hooks, and anything that goes 
on board for the equipment. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Can you tell us under that system what 
Avages the men earn? 

Mr. Gardner, The men earned this season from March until about 
the first of September Avhen the vessels returned, anyAvhere from 
$800 to $1,000. 

Chief Justice Hazen. They average about $150 a month? 

Mr. Gardner. That Avould be about it. 



AMEEICAN'-CAN'ADIAX FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 295 

Chief Justice Hazex. With regard to the nets that are used — where 
are they bought? 

Mr. Gardner. They are cotton lines bought from the American 
Linen Thread Co.. in the United States. Ours are all traAvling ves- 
sels except half a dozen. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The lines are similar to those bought by 
American fishermen ? 

Mr. Gardner. I think the very same. 

Chief Justice Hazen. With regard to the food given to the men 
on board these vessels, are you familiar with the Avay in which the 
American vessels are supplied? 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know that I can say I am exactly familiar ; 
I have been on board. 

Chief Justice Hazen. In a general Avay you have a knowledge of 
the way in which the American vessels are victualized? 

Mr. Gardner. I have. 

Chief Justice Hazen. First of all. I would like to ask you how 
the food and supplies furnished to the Canadian schooners compares 
with the food and supplies in general character, and so on. furnished 
to the American fishing vessels? 

Mr. Gardner. I think in comparison with the fishing vessels that 
go to the grand banks our food compares favorably Avith theirs. It 
seems that they get the very best. I understand that some of their 
vessels that do fresh fishing are perhaps supplied with articles some- 
what better than ours. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Better, or some articles in the way of lux- 
uries ? 

Mr. Gardner. Luxuries. The grade of goods on board our vessels 
is the very best: for instance take beef; we do not supply a cheap 
beef ; we supply the American Clover Brand. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The principal articles you would supply 
would be beef, flour, and pork? 

Mr. Gardner. I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that the beef, pork, 
lard, oil, and sugar are bought from the American markets in bond 
and put on the vessels free. We pay just what the Americans pay 
for them. I have a list of goods placed on board at American ports. 
[List produced and given to chairman. ] 

Chief Justice Hazen. You are with W. C. Smith & Co.? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You made this list out yourself? 

Mr. Gardner. I did. sir. Mr. Smith is indisposed, has been con- 
fined to the house for about two weeks. 

Chief Justice Hazen. These articles are all of the best? 

Mr. Gardner. All of the best. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I will enter this list in the record. [List 
entered is as follows :] 

JiUl. (tiitfiticr^ sui>i)1i('s foi' ,3 nioiiilif^. 

[Schoouer Glacier.] 

M;ircli-.Jnue order is dnijlicnteil in June. 



Bonded goods : 
4 barrels beet'. 
1 barrel pork. 
160 ponnds lard. 



IJonded goods — Continued. 
6 bags grnindated sugar. 
4 cases oil. 
Yellow sugar. 



296 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 



1'4 galldiis molasses. 
biinvls special flour. 
Our chief flour. 
175 pounds butter. 
9 bushels turnips. 
40 bushels potatoes. 
122 pounds biscuits. 
."> Imsliels Y. E. beans. 
A\'bite beans. 
."lO pounds raisins. 
Beets. 
Case goods : 

Beef. 

Tomatoes. 

3 cases peas. 

3 cases beans. 

2 cases corn. 

2i cases millc. 

1 case apples. 

1 case pumpkin. 

2 cases blueberries. ■ 
1 case clams. 

1 case peaches. 
40 dozen egjis. 
2;'> pounds i;reen peas. 
Split peas. 

3 poinids cocoa. 

2 pounds chocolate. 
Pulverized su.tiar. 
2 boxes yeast cakes. 
2 ]>onn(ls hops. 
(JO pounds onions. 

4 buckets jam. 

2 i)acka,ues macaroni. 
() paclvTa.ues cornstarch. 
10 pounds bakin.ti' poM'der. 

jMunids cream tartar. 
6 IMiunds bakinii' soda. 
14 pounds rolled oats. 

6 packages civam of wheat. 
10 pounds co]-n meal. 

5 gallons vinegar. 
20 pounds tea. 

30 pounds coffee. 

i pound picklin.f;- spice. 

W. I. peppei's. 

i pound nutmegs. 

i pound ginger. 

i pound cassia. 

7 pounds pepper. 
-1 pound allspice. 

1 pound jM. spice. 
1 i)Ouud cloves. 
Currants. 

I)ounds barley. 



FisJi. 

2(im ounces lemon. 

24 ounces vanilla. 

20 pounds tapioca. 

Dry mustard. 

6 bottles nuistard. 

9 bags table salt. 

2 bottles savory. 

Celery salt. 

Currie powdei". 

22 bottles Worcester sauce. 

36 bottles catsup. 

1 case canned strawben-ies. 

Wood, sawed. 

AVood, long. 

Gi'oss matches. 

Cold Dust. 

Soai). 

Pale yellow .soap. 

Stove polish. 

Baskets. 

Dinner plates. 

Soup plates. 

Pie plates. 

Dessert plates. 

Teaspoons. 

Tablespoons. 

Dessert si)oons. 

Knives and forks. 

Glasses. 

Lantern. 

Lantern globes. 

Lantern cones. 

Lantern burners. 

A. burners. 

B. burners. 

A. chimneys. 

B. chimneys. 
Corn brooms. 
B. brooms. 
Wit brooms. 
Red table linen. 
White table linen. 

>ilcloth. 
Toweling. 
Pairs towels. 
Torch wicking. 
Candles. 
Wicks. 
Stove brush. 
Scrub brush. 
Buckets. 
Store bags. 
Brick bath. 
Scrubbers. 
Mugs. 



10 pounds rice. 

You will note that I have only given a list of the food. You can 
see the other numerous articles'^ that must be supplied to complete 
the outfit for the crew, to sa.y nothing of the stoves and cooking 
utensils Avhich have to be supplied by the hardware department. 



W.C.S.&Co. 



AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN' FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 297 

This outfit represents something over $700 worth of goods and in- 
ckides only foodstuffs. 

W. C.S.&Co. 

Chief Justice Hazex. It woukl be quite correct to say tliat the men 
who go from Lunenburg are supplied with food just as good as any- 
where, and that a portion of those articles — beef, pork lard, sugar 
and oil — are bought in the United States? 

Mr. Gaednek. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Why not buy them in Canada? 

Mr. Gardner. I can buy more cheaply in the United States than 
in Canada. AVe get better beef and heavier pork in the United 
States. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And in your experience you say that they 
are equipped with just as good articles of food as the American 
schooners are, but they may have some more delicacies? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, I think they go in for ham and eggs and 
cheese. 

Chief Justice Hazen. This does not give the prices you pay I 

Mr. Gardner. I might mention that the crew inform us that there 
are case eggs placed on the American vessels which are paid for by 
the crew — not furnished by the vessels. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Gardner do you know how the oihcers 
are paid? 

Mr. Gardner. The only officer we have sir is the captain on board 
those vessels — our skipper as he is known. He gets a share with 
the men. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You are speaking entirely of the schooners. 
Have you any trawlers? 

Mr. Gardner. Steam trawlers. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The otter traAvler or the beam trawler? 

Mr. Gardner. No, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do your vessels carry as many men as the 
American vessels? 

Mr. Gardner. They carry seven boats — two men to a boat for 
fishing — T to 8 boats. 

Chief Justice Hazen. About the pay of the cai)tains — what have 
you to say with regaixl to that ? 

Mr. Gardner. The captains get a share with the men — he shares 
with them — then he gets a commission of 2^ per cent on the stock 
of the vessel and a commission of 5 per cent on that half which 
goes to the vessel owners — 2^ per cent on what the vessel stocks, 5 
per cent on what goes to the oAAners of the vessel and an equal share 
with the men. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how the rates that are paid 
on the Canadian fishing boats compare with what is paid on the 
American boats, or is it according to the same system? 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know exactly but I understood a 5 per cent 
straight commission to the captain. I may be wrong — I am not sure 
about it. 

Chief Justice Hazex. How are the men paid on the American 
schooners ? 

Mr. Gardner. They have different lays I understand. I am not 
familiar with them. 



298 AMERICAJSr-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Chief Justice Hazen. There is a one-fifth hiy? 

Mr. (lAKDNER. A one-fifth lay and a one-fonrth lay and a one-half 
share. 

Chief Ju.stice Hazen. But with vou at Lunenburg there is just 
the half lay? 

Mr. (iakdnior. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You have been engaged in the fishing busi- 
ness for a good many years? 

Mr. (tardnek. I have been connected Avith the firm for 10 years. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What is your opinion in regard to the value 
to the fishing vessels of the United States of being allowed the use 
of Canadian i:>orts under the modus vivendi — do yon consider it an 
advantage to them ? 

Mr. (Jardxer. I think it would be a great advantages to them. 

Chief flustice Hazen. They use them at present — vesssels pro- 
pelled by sail. Do you think it is an advantage to them to do it 
now and pay the $1.50 per ton for the trouble? 

Mr. (tardmer. I would think so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You would think the advantage would be 
very much greater if they were allowed to do it at a nominal rate 
and if vessels driven by steaui and power of different sorts were 
allowed to do it? 

Mr. (tardner. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You would consider tliat an a(hantage? 

Mr. (tardner. I would think so. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Where do you buy your bait? 

Mr. Gardner. From the Provincetown Cold Storage Co. in Massa- 
chusetts. 

Chief ffustice Hazex. AVhy do you not get it in Xova Scotia? 

Mr. (tardner. We can not secure it — not the frozen bait. That is 
the bait which they use for the first trip out — they go out in March. 
We get the frozen l)ait. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is there no plant in Xova Scotia Avhere they 
freeze this bait? 

Mr. Gardner. They freeze it at different plants but not in suf- 
ficient quantity, and the plants that supply frozen bait also purchase 
in the Auierican markets and then sell it to the Lnnenburg A'essels. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Do not Amei'ican vessels come into Nova 
Scotia ports and i)nrchase bait? 

Mr. (lARDNER. When they come for heri'ing in a later time of the 
year. That is when the vessels can get through to the Magdalen 
Islands. I am referring to frozen squid for the March baiting, but 
in June they get herring and buy them at Queensport and at Guys- 
boro ancl at different ports, while in the summer when they are 
fishing from the Banks of Newfoundland if they are not able to get 
the fresh sqnid they go into Newfoundland ports and buy herring. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Where is it vou buv this bait in the Ignited 
States? 

Ml". Gardner. The ProN'incetowu Cold Storage C^o. 

Chief Justice Hazen. At what time of the year? 

Mr. Gardner. We bought ours in the month of December this year. 

Chief Justice Hazen. When do your vessels go to the fishing 
grounds? 

Mr. Gardner. In the month of March. 



AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAX FISHERIES COISTFEEEXCE. 299 

Chief Justice Hazex. Is that the only season of the year when 
you buy it ? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Where do you sell 3'our fish, Mr. Gardner — 
after one of your schooners gets its load of fish what does it do then? 

Mr. Gaedxee. In most every case the fish is landed at Lunenburg 
and dried to make salt cod. There are a few exceptions. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do you sell any fresh in tlie Ignited States? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, sir. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You do not take anvthino- into the United 
States? 

^Ir. Gaedxee. Xo. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You would not be prepared to speak with 
regard to what advantage it would be to a Canadian fishing vessel 
to go directly to a port in the United States ? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xo. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Yours is the cured fish trade? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Where is your market^ 

Mr. Gaedxee. It is mostly in the West Indies — Trinidad. Cuba 
and Porto Eico. 

Chief Justice Hazex. You sell nothing in the way of fresh fish in 
the United States? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, unless some of the vessels desired to take up 
that business. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Is that true of the Lunenburg fishing fleet 
generally ? 

Mr. Gaedxee. I think it is because they are about all salt fishing. 

Chief Justice Hazex. They are not engaged in the fresh-fish busi- 
ness ? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xot at the present time. 

Chief Justice Hazex. How many vessels are sailing out of Lunen- 
burg ? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Last year about 102. 

Chief Justice Hazex. About 100 tons each? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Yes sir. standard size. 

Chief Justice Hazex". Have you had any difficulty in getting men 
to man your vessels? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, sir, particularly this year — I think we have 
more men than ever. 

Chief Justice Hazex. How do you account for that with the 
war on? 

Mr. Gaedxee. I suppose on our records may be found 50 to 100 
letters — men from Lunenburg west as far as Yarmouth — asking for 
permission to go on our vessels this year. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Has that affected wages at all? 

Mr. Gaedxee. Xo. I do not think it has. 

Chief Justice Hazex^ The wages are as high as previous years? 

Mr. Gaedxee. The only wages are for the cooks. 

Chief Justice Hazex. How are they? 

Mr. Gaedxee. A little bit higher than thev have been — $125 to 
$130 a month. 

Chief Justice Hazex. How many vessels do you say there were last 
year sailing out of Lunenburg ? 



300 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEREIsrCE. 

Ml-. (Iai!1).nki!. 10-2 I think. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is that more or fewer than usual? 

Mr. Gardner. Fewer. I think the year before the number was 
112 and tlie year before 126. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That to some extent woukl account for the 
fact that it was so easy to get men hist year? 

Mr. (lARi)NEi!. I am referring to the year coming. Last year we 
had some little difficulty in getting men. 

Cliief Justice Hazen. How many vessels will you have this year? 

Mr. Gardner. Twenty more vessels added to tlie fleet tlian last 
year, still there are plenty men. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Hoav do you accoimt for that, in view of 
the fact that there is complaint in regard to the scarcity of labor? 

Mr. Gardner. One great reason is that a number of fishermen 
are not going to (xloucester or Boston to fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What is the reason they are not going this 
year ? 

Mr. (tardner. We have had one or two vessel creAvs — men who 
have fished out of Gloucester and Avho fished out of Lunenburg last 
year and the crews fared so well and made such a successful year 
that they have gone home and told their friends and they want to 
come to Lunenburg to fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is that due to the fact that the lay that 
you have in Lunenburg gives the fishermen better residts than the 
arrangement in Gloucester? 

Mr. Gardner. I am not prepared to say that, but I know it was 
because of the high prices they got for the fish last year. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The price of fish has advanced very much 
in the last few years? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, of all fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The price of fresh fish in the American 
markets is a great deal higher than a few years ago? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes. 

Chief Justice Hazen. And the same with salt fish? 

Mr. Gardner. The salt fish which we formerly sold for $7 a 
quintal last year sold at $12. Even with the extra charges the owners 
got the advantage of the increase in the price of fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. You are familiar with the situation in 
Lunenburg. Provided a fair arrangement could be made Avith the 
United States so that our vessels engaged in the fresh-fish trade 
would be able to sell their fish in the markets of the United States 
without being hampered by restrictive navigation laws or restric- 
tive custom laAvs, would it in your o]:)inion be a fair thing t() nud<:e 
the modus vivendi arrangement of a more permanent character so 
as to give the American fishermen privileges in our ports on pay- 
ment of a merely nominal amou.nt. say $1 a year, or entirely free? 
Mr. Gardner. That would all depend upon Avhat number of ves- 
sels would take advantao'c of o-oino- to American i')orts to land their 
fish. ^ - . 

Chief Justice Hazen. I am asking you Avould there be any objec- 
tion to that from the Lunenburg standpoint — any objection to al- 
lowing American vessels to come into our Canadian ports and using 
them as freely as our OAvn people use them, provided Ave get a re- 
turn in the nature of more liberal laws? 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CO:NtFERENCE. 301 

Mr. Gardner. I would saj' in answer to that that anything that 
would be done sa}^ on a fifty-fifty basis I think the people of Lunen- 
burg would be satisfied with — would be Avilling to be quite mutual 
over it. 

Secretary Redfield. Where do you insure your vessels? 

Mr. Gardner. With the local insurance house at La Havre — also 
with Gale & Co., a branch office at Halifax. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know the difference in rate, if any. 
between what you pa}^ and the Gloucester schooners pay ? 

Mr. Gardner. No, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know that tliere is a diiference? 

Mr. Gardner. No, sir; I do not. 

Secretary Redfield. Are these vessels built in Lunenburg itself? 

Mr. Gardner. The greater number of them are built in Lunen- 
burg — not exactly in the town — 4 or 5 miles out, perhaps along the 
La Havre brook — a number are built at Shelburne and Lunenburg. 

Secretary Redfield. Is this wood locally obtained? 

Mr. Gardner. Locally obtained. 

Secretary Redfield. How is it seasoned? 

Mr. Gardner. It is not seasoned any more than — it is taken from 
the woods and put right onto the vessel. 

Secretary Redfield. It is not kiln-dried lumber at all? 

Mr. Gardner. No. 

Secretary Redfield. It is not air-seasoned lumber, then? 

Mr. Gardner. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Then would it be correct to say that the ships 
are to some considerable extent built of green lumber? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Do we understand that the keel is of oak? 

Mr. Gardner. No I do not think I said that — of beech or birch. 
The stern post would be of oak and the stem is generally of beech 
and oak. 

Secretary Redfield. Your planking? 

Mr. Gardner. The planking is of birch and beech — mostly beech. 

Secretary Redfield. And the floors? 

Mr. Gardner. The floors are of hardwood of the same material, 
and the top timbers and stanchions of soft wood — spruce. 

Secretary Redfield. But this is neither kiln dried nor air dried 
Avood ? 

Mr. Gardner. Neither one. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you any knowledge as to the relative 
cost of repairs upon those vessels as compared with the Gloucester 
built vessels? 

Mr. Gardner. No, not in comparison with it. 

Secretary Redfield. What do you estimate the normal life of such 
a vessel in active service? 

Mr. Gardner. There have been Lunenburg vessels probably that 
have seen actual life and have good life up to 15 years. 

Secretary Redfield. That is an extreme case? 

Mr. Gardner. That may be an extreme case. The Lunenburg 
skipper thinks that the life of his vessel — 8 or 9 years is about good 
enough for it — they are generally sold then for freighting. The 
Lunenburg people like to have new vessels. 



302 AMERICAN'-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFEEEISrCE, 

Secretary Redfield. Would it or would it not be an advantage to 
dealers in supplies of various kinds for vessels if the American fleet 
were permitted free access to Canadian ports — I mean of course the 
local Canadian dealers in the ports? 

Mr. Gardnepv. We have to buy the articles of beef, pork, and lard 
and things like that in American ports — they can buy them cheaper 
there than in Canadian ports — there might be other articles advan- 
tageous to us to have them come and buy. 

Secretary Eedfielu. Do you know of your oAvn knowledge whether 
the American vessels now buy certain supplies in Canadian ports ? 

Mr. Gardner. There are certain times when they come in short of 
food and have to buy a good supply — enough to last for several 
weeks. 

Secretary Redfield. The point I want to clear up is whether there 
is not a mutual bond of interest there — a point of mutual interest on 
the part of the American vessel to be able to buy its supplies and on 
the part of the Canadian dealer to sell, so that by opening the Cana- 
dian port to the power boats there would be an enlargement of a 
mutual interest. That is the whole object that I wished to bring out 
there. Do you regard this reluctance of men to go to Gloucester or 
Boston to fish as a permanent change? 

Mr. Gardner. No, I do not, sir. I think it is only due to condi- 
tions in existence at present. 

Secretary Redfield. Arising from certain current local condi- 
tions ? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. Has that some relation to the war or the draft or any- 
thing of that kind? 

Mr. Gardner. I suppose it has relation to the war in this respect — 
there is a great demand for food and the shortage of tonnage to get 
food to our allies. 

Mr. Sweet. The motive for fishermen going to Gloucester and Bos- 
ton to get work was that thej could make better wages there? 

Mr. Gardner. I think in some respects that they have been making 
better wages, and I think that probably has been the greatest thing 
that has drawn them there in previous years. 

Mr. Sweet. You said, I think, that there were about 102 vessels 
in the Lunenburg fleet that went out last year? 

Mr. Gardner. I think that is the report of the Customs — of the 
99-ton regulation size. 

Mr. Sw^EET. J^j how many clifi^erent persons or companies were 
they owned? 

Mr. Gardner. The ownership, sir, of vessels in Lunenburg is dif- 
ferent — it is the cooperative system — a vessel is composed of 64 
shares, and if a skipper or man is going to get a vessel he gives 4, 5, 
or 6 of his men who are with him one or two of those shares, or sells 
them to them. In that way the men have a double interest in the 
fishing. 

Mr. Sweet. They are part owners. 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know that a system of that kind exists in 
any other part of the Dominion. They have a double interest. 

You asked me about the number of firms — of course in Lunenburg 
there are four or five of the outfitting firms who deal in supplies, 
and Avhen we speak, say, of the /. D. Hasen, we refer to her as being 



AMERICAIsT-CANAmAN" FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 303 

one of the vessels of the W. C. Smith Co., while she is not owned by 
them. They own 4, 5, or 6 shares in her, Avhile other people own the 
remaining shares, bnt these vessels are sent out and fitted out by the 
five or six outfitting firms' existing in Lunenburg. 

Mr. Sweet. I understand that your firm has an interest in a con- 
siderable number of vessels ? 

Mr. Gardner. An interest in all that we outfit. 

Mr. Sweet. But not the entire ownership of any? 

Mr. Gardner. ISTo. 

Secretary Redfield. So that the fisherman may get not only his 
share of the fishermen's lay, but also participate as a part owner ? 

Mr. Gardner. That is the idea, sir. 

Mr. Saveet. In figuring the amount the fisherman is entitled to on 
the one-half -lay plan that j^ou have described, how do you get at the 
value of the catch— are they actually sold or are they estimated under 
the curing system j^ou speak of ? 

Mr. Gardner. Under the curing system — when the fish are brought 
home they are taken from the vessel and placed with different men 
who engage in that business of drying and curing the fish. We know 
of them as fish makers. They are paid 50 cents a quintal for drying, 
and they deliver them to your wharf or warehouse. When the fish 
are brought in they are weighed and we get the number of quintals. 
We pay 50 cents: for the expense of curing. Only three years ago 
we paid 25 cents, then 3.0 cents, then 40 cents, and this year we are 
pajdng 50 cents. 

Mr. Sweet. From the value of the cured fish you deduct the cost 
of curing? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. The balance would represent the value of the fish upon 
which to form a basis for figuring the remuneration of the fishermen? 

Mr. Gardner. After the charges are taken off, the cost of curing 
and the bait and the wages of the two boys, one-half of that is taken 
and divided into 16 or whatever number of men there are on the 
vessel, share and share alike. 

Mr. Sweet. AVith regard to the green material that you use in 
A^our vessels, does that afterwards shrink and give you trouble? 

Mr. Gardner. No ; I do not think that it does, sir. We never seem 
to have serious trouble from it. 

Mr. Sw^eet. Does it give as good satisfaction as well dried lumber — - 
air dried ? 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know that any of the vessels are built of 
air dried — I often hear them say that a vessel built in the winter 
time is not as good as one built in the summer time. I have not seen 
any actual proof of it — the material is all green — right from the 
stump, you might sa}^ 

Mr. Sweet. Do they have to use an unusual amount of calking 
and that sort of thing — do the seams open ? 

Mr. Gardner. No ; I think that probably the Lunenburg vessels 
will stand as well as any of the vessels as far as calking is con- 
cerned — we have had vessels that have gone two or three seasons 
before needing calking. Some vessels will want more than others. 

Mr. Sweet. I am asking these questions because we have had the 
subject of wooden vessels up for war purposes and the question of 
seasoned material has been discussed to a considerable extent. I 



804 AMERICAN-CANADIAN nSHERIES CONFERENCE. 

ihoiioiil it niiiiiil he iii( cresting to know what your experiences had 
slioAvn. 

Ml'. (lAKDNKU. I do not think there has heen any diffieulty as far 
as Lunenburg is eoncerned. 

Dr. S:\irrii. Will you ])lease give a little more information about 
this tirst squid bait which you obtain from Provincetown. What is 
the usual amount of bail carried on a vessel for that first trip? 
Mr. (lAifONioij. AnywJKM-e from 1'2,00() to 1T,()()() pounds. 
Dr. SiNiiTii. AVhat is the cost of that bait? 

Mr. (tai{I)nki{. The retail cost is from 4:| to 4i cents a pound when 
W(> get it at Tjunenburg. 

Dr. SiMrrii. What is the length of the trip which this first bait! 
sup])lies? 

Mr. (iai!1)m:i!. Al)out one month. 

Di-. SiviiTii. Subse(|uently you depend on local stores? 
Mr. (taudnrr. Yes; get through and get the heri'ing. 
Di'. SMrrrr. You have no further occasion to send to Provincetown 
or anywhere else in the United States for bait? 
Mr. (tardnrr. No, sir; not after that. 

Dr. Smith. All of the vessels at Lunenburg obtain this squid bait 
from Provincetown ? 

Mr. (Iardner. Not all, altiiough I understand they purchase from 
the Canadian houses. They purchase from some of the cold-storage 
j)lants but I believe they bring it from Provincetown. 

Dr. S^rrrii. Is it more con^•enient for the Canadian cold-storage 
plants to obtain that squid from Provincetown than from NeAvfouncl- 
land? 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know that it is more convenient. It may 
be that they are not able to obtain it — I could not go into that ver}^ 
well. I think there are gentlemen here Avho can go into the matter 
of frozen bait much better than I can. JNIr. Wils(m no doubt Avould 
be very pleased to go into that. 

Dr. SivriTH. I would like to ha^e you verify in regard to the wages 
on board your vessels; the cooks are very important, and the wage 
Avhich I undei'stood you to say you paid was $120 or $125 a month? 
Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir, sometimes there is $10 difference. 
Dr. Smith. And that expense is borne by the crew? 
Mr. Gardner. Yes — borne b}?^ the crew^ 

Secretary Kedfield. Is that cook employed elsewhere, so that he 
has emi:>lovmont throughout the year at that wage? 

Mr. Gardner. lie is not employed at that rate if going freighting. 
The regular freighting wage would be from $70 to $7;") a month. 
After September when those vessels come home — this year and last 
year every one of our vessels that went out, with one or two excep- 
tions — were all placed in what we would call the freighting business — 
w^ould go to Halifax and take a load of flour to Newfoundland, and 
take a load of fish from there to the Barbadoes — and these cooks at 
that time would be paid a wage of $75 — they are only cooking for 
7 men. while in the summer they are cooking for 18 to 20 men. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We are very much obliged to you for your 
information. Is there anything you w'ould like to add yourself? 

Mr. (tardner. Nothing that I know^ of, Mr. Chairman, at the pres- 
ent time. 



AMEEICAN-CAIsrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 3C6 

Chief Justice Hazen. I would say to you and other gentlemen 
here, it will be some time before we meet to consider our recommen- 
dations and if in the meantime anybody interested in the fishing busi- 
ness in this country or anywhere else has anything they wish to bring 
before us, if they will submit it in writing we will be very glad to give 
it the very best consideration in our power. They should communi- 
cate with Mr. Found, and he will see that each of the commissioners 
is furnished Avitli a copy. 

Mr. Sweet. Upon the main point, as to making an arrangement 
such as we have spoken of — whether or not I get the right impression 
from what you said. I inferred that you did not consider it neces- 
sary to go into every little detail with regard to whether Americans 
would get a little more advantage in your ports or Canadians a little 
more advantage by selling in American ports — that you did not think 
it necessary to strike a very close balance, but an equitable basis — a 
fifty-fifty basis? 

Mr. Gardner. That is my personal opinion. An equitable arrange- 
ment, as nearly a fifty-fifty basis as possible would be a good thing 
for both. We have no other end in view but to work out things to 
the mutual satisfaction of both. 

STATEMENT BY MR. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, GORTON-PEW FISH- 
ERIES, GLOUCESTER. 

By Secretary Redfield : 

Q. You have heard the statement of Mr. Gardner? — A. Yes. 

Q. In what respect does the construction of those vessels made for 
you in Gloucester differ from the statement of Mr. Gardner? — A. 
The frames of our vessels are of white oak. My impression is that 
Mr. Gardner said his were of soft wood, and 90 per cent of our 
planking is seasoned oak — it comes from Ohio. 

Q. Is that kiln dried? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Air dried? — A. Just seasoned. 

Q. And your keels and keelsons? — A. What we call soft wood — 
they are not oak — we prefer not to use oak, but to use birch and 
maple. 

Q. What do you consider the normal life of one of these vessels? — 
A. We have them going 20 or 25 years — we have one vessel that was 
built in 1899. 

Q. Still in use ? — A. Yes, sir — she was not recalked until year 
before last. Last year she took a cargo of fish to the Mediterranean — 
the schooner ./. /. Flaherty — and brought a cargo of salt back. At 
the present time she is carrying fish back and forth to Newfound- 
land — from Bay of Islands to Gloucester. She is a vessel of 160 odd 
tons. 

Q. What would a vessel of 100 tons cost to-day? — A. A vessel of 
100 tons with hull and spars would- cost about $16,000 — that is with- 
out the rigging, without the sails, without any equipment — ^that is 
just the bare spars and the beams and the hull, but that vessel all 
rigged for our salt fish business as the Lunenburg vessels are would 
cost about $22,000. 

Q. All rigged? — A. All rigged but no ballast— if she was rigged 
the same as we fit our fresh fishermen it would cost about $25,000. 

51950—18 20 



306 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. What we Avant to get if we can is a comparative statement. 
Mr. Gardner spoke of a vessel, as I recall his statement, with the 
spars, hull and spars, at a cost of from $18,000 to $22,000. Am I 
correct in understanding that you say it would cost about $1G,000? — 
A. Yes, sir; hull and spars — no rigging. 

Q. Seasoned Ohio air-dried oak for planking and for frames? — 
A. Yes, sir — we have just contracted with Mr. Davis whom you met 
the other day — he is paying us $14,000, but he is furnishing the spars. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 

Q. Do I understand, Mr. Smith, that you have a contract to-day 
for a vessel — the hull and the spars — built as you build them in the 
Xmited States and that your contract price is $16,000? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. One hundred tons ? — A. One hundred and twenty tons gross. 

Q. You heard Mr. Gardner's statement that he has a contract for 
liis firm for a vessel of 100 tons with spars for $22,000? 

Mr. Gardner. I said it would cost from $18,000 to $22,000. 

Chief Justice Hazen. What is your contract price? 

Mr. Gardner. $18,000. I know'of contracts that are $22,000. 

By Chief Justice Hazen: 

Q. So that Mr. Gardner's vessel is costing $2,000 more to build? — 
A. The prices in Lunenburg have advanced more than they have 
advanced with us. Eight or 10 years ago, before the war, conditions 
were such that Lunenburg vessels would cost much less than that. 

Q. These gentlemen who appeared before us in the United States 
and told us that one of the handicaps the fishermen there would en- 
counter would be the less cost of vessels in Canada were basing that 
on what had been the case years ago? — A. They cited the Clentonia^ 
and the facts given you on that were true but conditions have 
changed. 

STATEMENT BY ME. ALERED H. BEITTAIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR 
OF THE MARITIME FISHING CORPORATION (LTD.), MON- 
TREAL. 

Q. You are managing director of the Maritime Fish Corpora- 
tion? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is your head office? — A. Our executive offices are in 
Montreal, our plants are in Digby and Canso, Nova Scotia. 

Q. What branch of the fishing business does your company engage 
in« — A. We are vessel owners and we buy fi4i from the fishermen. 

Q. And where do you sell that fish ? — A. We put the raw material 
into the markets that we consider will give us the best returns. A 
large part of our business is the fresh-fish business. We also dry and 
cure fish. 

Q. Where do vou sell your fresh fish ? — A. In Canada. 

Q. Do you sell in the United States at all?— A. Very little. 

Q. Yoii find a market in Canada for all the fresh fish that you 
g-et? — A. We have been exporting some frozen fish to Europe — a 
matter of Avar conditions, but speaking to the point I would say that 
our fresh fish is sold in Canada. 

Q. Do you find it an increasing market in Canada ? — A. Yes. 

Q. Are you able to supply all the fish that there is a demand for?— 
A. Within the past six months the demand for fish, through in- 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 307 

creased publicity, has increased considerabty. I think the same thing 
prevails in the United States and I would say that our conditions are 
perhaps the same as theirs. While there are no figures that we could 
arrive at, there has been an increase of easily 100 per cent. 

Q. We were told in the United States that the statistics show that 
the consumption per head of fish in the United States is 18 pounds — • 
the consumption per head in Canada is 29 pounds, and the consump- 
tion in Great Britain before the war was 58 pounds per capita. You 
are vessel owners? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where do you get your vessels built? — A. We have had our 
schooners built in Shelburne, I think. 

Q. What is the size of the schooners? — A. One hundred tons. 

Q. Have you had any built lately ? — A. None. 

Q. None since the outbreak of war? — A. No. 

Q. What were you pa.ying for a 100-ton schooner when j^ou last 
purchased ? — A. I am not in a position to give you that information, 
Mr. Hazen, at the present moment. 

Q. Do 3^ou know how the men are paid on board your vessels? — 
A. Our schooners — on the lay — 1/5 lay. 

Q. Will you lell me how that is worked out? — A. If you would 
just leave that part to Mr. Short — he will be able to give the complete 
information. 

Q.. Have 3^ou steam trawlers ? — A. Yes ; we own one steam trawler, 

O. Is that the Balleinef—X. The Raindore. 

Q. How are the men paid on that? I will tell you the reason I 
ask that. X gentleman in Boston who made a statement before 
us told us that on the American trawlers the men are paid $40 a 
month wages and that an additional smn of $7 on every thousand 
pounds of fish caught is divided among the men. He understood 
that in Canada the men got only $30 a month and $7 a thousand 
on the fish caught. We were also informed that the officers in 
Canada were paid larger sums than the officers in the United States. 
We want to see how it would work out as having a bearing on the 
expense of producing fish. — A. Steam trawling in this country is not 
worked out yet on the same basis as in Boston, which is the steam 
trawling port of the United States. In Canada diiferent individual 
firms own one boat. I do not think one firm owns more than one 
boat, and the lay under Avhich these men are paid is different be- 
cause they have not got down to any basis to work on. ■ I think I 
am safe in saying we are the first operators of steam trawlers in 
Canada. We owned the old steam trawler Wren, which we pur- 
chased from England. We purchased equipment for her, thinking 
we would nnike a success. We lest $15,000 or $-20,000 in the first 
year and sold the boat to the highest bidder. We later chartered 
a couple of boats from England on a purchase price for fish — 
they ov,nied their own vessels and we paid them so much a pound 
far" the fish, and a year and a half ago we purchased this ship our- 
selves outright. The lay in comparison between the United States 
and Canada" I think would boil dovrn to this — that the Boston men 
made about the same amount of wages as our men make. Our men 
may make a little more than the men on the Boston ships. _ The 
skipper on our ship makes a great deal more money than the skipper 
on the American ships. 



308 AMEEICAF-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

Q. The details of this matter can be given to us by Mr. Short '. — 
A. He is not familiar with them. 

Q. Do yon pay your men a certain snm per month and a certain 
amount per thousand of fish caught ? — A. Yes ; we pay the same as 
the United States. We pay the men a certain Avage and we pay 
the captain a certain wage, but their principal remuneration is de- 
rived from the commissions Avhich they get. 

Q. We were told in Boston that they paid their men $40 a month 
and $7 per thousand for every thousand of fidi that were caught 
and that amount was divided among the crew equally, while the 
assertion was made that in Canada the steam trawlers pay $30 a 
month and a bonus on the fish caught. — A. In answer to that, Mr. 
Hazen — in the first place we originally started off paying our crews 
on the same lays as they paid in Grimsby, England. They pay their 
crews on what they call the net return from the vessel after paying 
expenses, whereas in the United States they pay their men a com- 
mission of 7 per cent on the gross stock of the vessel. In other 
M^ords, they pay their men on the gross stock of 7 per cent on the 
vessel, whereas in our case and in some other cases where it has nor 
got down to a standard basis yet we have paid, as in England, on the 
net stock of the vessel after deducting expenses — the grub and ether 
fixed charges — because our men on our boats are largely men from 
Norway and Denmark, where they are in the habit of v,^orking under 
that particular law, and rather than take them away from it and 
upset conditions we have more or less adhered to that particular lay 
of wages in connection with the men. 

Q. And you say that under your system you are paying about 
the same wages as on trawlers sailing out of Boston? — A. Our 
men to-day will average a little more — within perhaps $8 or $10 
a month, than the men in Boston, and our skipper wall average 
a great deal more than the skipper in the United States, so much so 
that the skippers of our boats are something like the Lunenburg fel- 
lows — they perhaps make more money than the proprietors of the 
business themselves. They earn every cent that thej^ get, and a large 
percentage of their business is on a commission basis, according to the 
stock they^ bring in. 

Q. It would be correct to say, Mr. Brittain, having regard to the 
pay of the captain and the pay of the crew, that the wages paid on 
trawlers operating from the Nova Scotia ports are greater than the 
wages on the trawlers operating from the port of Boston % — A. Yes. 

Q. Well, now, what do you say about the supplies — the food that is 
supplied on board these trawlers? Do you know that end of the busi- 
ness? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have j^ou sufficient knowledge to make any comparison between 
the food on a Canadian trawler and that supplied on an American 
trawler, as to quality? — A. Generally speaking I can say that the 
quality of the food on the Canadian trawler is of the very best. 
There is no limitation put on what food they will have, whether 
delicacies or luxuries — pickles, olives — in fact they live better than I 
live at home, as a general rule. 

Q. I suppose as a matter of fact, Mr. Brittain, you could not get 
men on your trawlers unless you feed them well? — A. With the 
very best. If they want anything at all in reason, outside of 
liquors or things not allowed, they can have them, if it is a ques- 



AMEEICAISr-CAlSrADIAIsr FISHEEIES COlsTFEREISrCE. 309 

tion of food to keep them satisfied and get the very best out of them 
as to work, we let them have it. 

Q. You believe Napoleon's idea that an army travels on its stomach, 
applies to fishermen? — A. You take our boats starting off for the 
grounds — they may be fishing for two days. There are many, many 
occasions when those men have not had two hours' sleep. These boats 
are operating night and day. They stay on the ground and have got 
to keep working night and day on double shifts — it may be every two 
hours or every hour they haul this gear — it depends on the quantity 
of fish. They have got to be dressed and put in the hold. There are 
many times when the only slee]? these men get is going to the fishing 
grounds and coming home. We get them away from the dock about 
as quickly as possible. 

Q. Is it possible to obtain beam trawlers from Great Britain 
now i — A. Nothing that is modern at all. 

Q. Why is that, Mr. Brittain? — A. I understand from the infor- 
mation I have received from Ottawa from time to time that it is 
Admiralty orders. 

Q. Because the trawlers are taken for naval purposes ? — A. Yes. 

Q. And a great many trawlers have been destroyed by submarines 
and mines? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know the relative cost, taking it now, of a trawler in 
Great Britain and the United States — I mean the beam trawler — the 
otter trawler? — A. In England there have been no trawlers that I 
know of that there have been contracts let for immediate delivery 
because the Admiralty has taken charge of the shipyards. 

Q. It is impossible to get a trawler built for a private corporation 
or to obtain one in any way there? — A. Yes. 

Q. I think you said that you sold all your fish in Canadian mar- 
kets except a certain quantity you are sending overseas — frozen fish. 
I suppose that market overseas is not regarcled by you as a perma- 
nent market. I presmne after the war when fishing conditions be- 
come normal in Great Britain it will be impossible to send fish from 
Canada in competition wdth the British fishermen? — A. We hope 
that we will be able to still continue to ship. 

Q. To be able after the war to send fish over there? — A. That is 
our idea; we hope to be able to send certain kinds of fish. 

Q. What fish will you be able to do that with ? A. There are fish — 
take the cod — the cod at times is sold at comparatively low figures 
here and at extremely high prices in England. It is a question if 
we can educate the people in England to the fact that a good frozen 
fish is about as good as a fresh fish that has been caught in Iceland 
or somewhere else and been away from the water for two or three 
weeks. Personally I see no reason why we can not sell frozen fish to 
a good extent in England and eventually build up a big business. 
They have been selling frozen rabbit in England, and formerly they 
bought fresh rabbit from Lord So-and-so's estates, and there was a 
prejudice against frozen rabbit. 

Q. You are removing that prejudice? — A. Yes; we are doing 
that now. 

Q. Where do you ship your fish from — Digby?^A. She lands at 
Canso. 

Q. And you ship your fish from there to the markets of Quebec 
and Ontario? — A. Yes. 



310 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. Do you send anything to the United States? — A. Ver\' little. 
We have always catered to onr Canadian market. 

Q. What little you have sent to the United States, how have yon 
sent it ? — A. By rail. 

Q. A very limited quantity ? — A. Very limited. We have no other 
way of getting it — either by rail and steamer or all rail. 

Q. And you believe there is still a large market that can be devel- 
oped for fish as a result of advertising — that the Canadian market 
can be still further developed? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you go in for lobsters at all, Mr. Brittain ? — A. No. 

Q. What would be your view with regard to extending the priv- 
ileges that are now given under the modus vivendi to vessels owned 
by American citizens, propelled by steam or other motive power? — 
A. My view is very much as Mr. Gardner's view is. That is to say^ 
as far as my company is concerned, we feel that this is the opportune 
time, if it is ever going to be done, to work out arrangements that are 
going to be permanent and lasting, and while it may be a disadvan- 
tage to us or it may be a disadvantage to the United States, the way 
I figure it out this is the time to tackle the job and let us adapt our- 
selves to circumstances. We are quite willing, as far as we are con- 
cerned, to adapt ourselves to conditions which may exist in connec- 
tion with this landing fish in the United States. It is going to affect 
my business quite considerably, just as the men in Boston feel. We 
are in the fresh fish business, and it is a commodity Avhich has to be 
handled quickly. There may be an advantage in having our vessels 
go into Boston ports, and I believe a considerable advantage at times 
in American vessels having the privilege of landing in our Canadian 
ports. The vessel property is practically the basis of the industry, 
and the next is the consumer — the man in between generally fig- 
ures out his margin of profit, but whether it will be an advantage to 
our consumers all over Canada, that is a question hard to answer. 

You know, gentlemen, that the price of fish has been higher in the 
United States — excepting at times when there is a glut — than it is in 
Canada. It may take away from our Canadian people a certain 
quantit}^ of our own fish — all that will be necessary will be to steam 
another 100 miles and land in Boston and give the American 
people that extra food. It may take it away from us, but on the other 
hand I think that perhaps we can adjust this matter and get it down 
to an equitable basis. We are small here — it is a 100 to 1 shot. You 
have 100,000,000 and we have 10,000,000. It gets back to the old 
reciprocity pact. I remember speaking to Mr. Fielding at the time 
and I asked him what our privileges were to be in the event of 
reciprocity — we would have to put a desk on some wharf around 
Boston to look after our vessels. Would our vessels then have the 
privilege of going to the channel somewhere between Yarmouth and 
Boston and fishing side b}^ side with American boats, or would he 
have to go to Yarmouth and clear and go back and find his friends — 
it made two trips to his one. He said it would be fixed up afterwards, 
but I saw where it would be a detriment to us. It gets dowii now to 
the question as to whether it is going to be an advantage to Canada 
or to the United States. We will have to adapt ourselves and wake 
up and see that the United States boys down on the pier in Boston do 
not get up earlier than we do. I can assure you that we have had 
to be trained in about four different branches of the business and I 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIZS COXrEEEXCE. 311 

think that perhaps one of our men can do the ^vork of perhaps two 
of the boys orer there. 

By ^Ir. Svi-EET : 

Q. On the American side T\-e have heard some objection on the 
ground of opening up a Terv htrge market in exchange for a small 
market. Some of our people in the business think that is not fair, 
when we are giving a market of 100.000.000 people where yon give a 
market of 10.000.000. Suppose this plan were carried ont in abso- 
hite good faith for the consumers of both cotmtries. Don't von think 
that there would be a decided advantage in making this arrangement ? 
Woidd not the tendency of this j)roposed plan be to increase produc- 
tion, to elhninate waste of time, and so forth i — A. I believe it would. 
sir ; and furthermore I believe that the American fisherman will still 
land his boat at the South Pier in Boston. He may have occasional 
times when he has to go for a long way off to sea — ^where the fish are 
moving from one ground to another — or in the hot sttmmer day- he 
may think it advantageous to land at some Canadian port, but gen- 
erally spealdng I think you will fimd that the American steam trawler 
and perhaps the schooners also which are in close proximity to the 
ITnited States will land their boats in the United States. 

Q. About American steam trawler- — they have no right now to 
come into Canadian ports ? — ^A. Xo. 

Q. Do they ever come in to yotir knowledge for ptu'poses of shelter, 
repairs, wood, and water ? — A. There were two steam trawlers into 
Canada last year fi-om the United States, under special arrangement 
with the Canadian Govermnent. for an extra quantity of food. 

Q. Is it your opmion that it would be an advantage to them to have 
the right to come in ■ — A. I believe it would. 

Q. For the ptirpose of supplies and other purposes ? — A. I believe 
so. sir. 

Q. As nearly as you can estimate, withotit. as I said to Mr. Gard- 
ner, striking too close a balance — ^just speaking rotighly. would you 
think that the advantages and disadvantages wotdd be nearly enough 
on the fifty-fifty basis to make a fair arrangement for both cotm- 
tries ( — A. I think that is the proper way to figure it out myself. 

Q. You think the plan we are tallring about would be near enough 
to justify its being made ? — ^A. Provided the Canadian vessels in ex- 
chano:e for that had no handicaps in connection with the coasting 
privilege or with the ctistoms. 

Q. Ihe right to clear for American fishing grotmds and return — - 
if that right were gTanted to Canadian boats ancl corresponding rights 
to American boats, then I ask you whether you think such an arrange- 
ment woitld be a fair one. and one that might be called a fifty-fifty 
basis -. — A. I think it would, sir. 

STATEMENT' BY ME. S. Y. WIISOTT. OF THE LEONARD FISHERIES 

OF HALIFAX. 

By Cliief Justice Hazex : 
Q. You are associated with the Leonard Fisheries ? — A. Yes. sir. 
Q. You reside in Halifax ? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. I stippose Halifax might be described as tlie center of the fi-li 
trade, for your i^rovince i — A. Yes. sir. They feel rliat this com- 



312 AMERICAN-CANAmAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 

miHsion should have eonie to Halifax to get the views of the ]Deople, 
because they think it a matter that inoi-e directly beai's on Nova 
Scotia than any of the other Maritime Provinces. 

Q. I am glad there are so many Nova Scotians here to-day. If 
necessary later on perhaps Ave can go to Halifax. — A. I think that 
ought to be considered. Probably you would get a broader range 
of information in that way. The men from Lunenburg had to leave 
on Saturday toi, be here to-day. I know several of the captains to 
whom I spoke would have been very glad to go to Halifax if they 
could have had the sitting there. 

Q. We have got very valuable information from Mr. Gardner and 
Mr. Brittain — that can be considei'ed later. I want to ask you, Mr. 
Wilson, what line of fish you handle? — A. Principally fresh and 
smoked fish — Ave do some curing. 

Q. Where do you sell your fresh and smoked fish? — A. In the 
United States and the Canadian market — largely in the Canadian 
market. 

Q. Do you oAvn vessels? — A. We ha\e some steamers and vessels 
that are used for smacking purposes. The steamer Balleine is fit- 
ting out as a steam traAvler. 

Q. You heard Mr. Brittain's statement Avith regard to the system 
under Avhich the men are paid? — A. Yes. 

Q. You are operating that system? — A. As far as I knoAV the 
captain is hiring his crcAv — paying the same wages as in Boston, 
the same percentage — Avhile he is getting a higher. 

Q. The same Avages and the same percentage paid as in Boston? — 
A. He is given a free hand and I understand that is Avhat he is doing. 

Q. The Avages being paid are similar to those paid out of the Port 
of Boston ? — A. Exactly, as far as I knoAV — as far as the steamer Bal- 
leine is concerned— but I understand the captain himself is getting 
a higher percentage. 

Q. That would be Capt. Spinney ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With regard to the supplies on board Canadian fishing vessels 
generalh^ — you have heard the statements made by Mr. Gardner 
and Mr. Brittain? — A. I think they are absolutely correct. There 
may be a greater variety — the quality can not be any different. The 
goods are the A^er}^ best and the only difference is in the luxury end 
of the thing. The United States fishermen are taxed back for that 
Avliere the Canadian fishermen are not taxed at all. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I think the Avitness means that Avhere certain 
luxuries are supplied on board American fishing A-essels they are 
charged up to the creAV and taken out of their share of the lay. 

Q, The fish that you sell in the United States — hoAv do you send 
it there? — A. Mostly by express, or previous to this year Ave shipped 
by the Plant Line and by Yarmouth — they have a daily boat in the 
summer season — tAvo boats a Aveek noAv and sometimes four. 

Q. You do not catch fish yourselves — you buy them? — A; Yes. 

Q. Then you reship them into Boston by the Plant Line or some 
other AvaA^? — A, The}^ are repacked. 

Q. You have had no personal experience Avith the catching of fish 
in your oAvn vessels and sending your vessels on to Boston ? — A. No, 
not exactly. 

Q. Yon understand the business thoroughly — take a vessel from 
Nova Scotia that goes out to the Banks and gets fish and desires to 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAK FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 313 

sell that load in the United States — explain to us what it has to do? — 
A. To be marketed as fresh fish? 

Q. Yes. — A. The}" would have to be landed in a Xova Scotia port 
or have to come to a Xova Scotia port and become a common carrier 
and then go to the United States. In leaving the United States he 
is bound to clear as a common carrier for a Xova Scotia port before 
running to the fishing ground. 

Q. Would it be a marked advantage to our fishermen if they were 
able to go directly from the fishing grounds to the market in the 
United States, and to clear from the United States again for the fish- 
ing grounds ? — A. That could hardly be answered yes or no. At dif- 
ferent seasons of the year it would probabh^ be an advantage, while 
;at others it would not be any advantage. It is a problem. 

Q. On the whole, would it be an advantage or not? — A. I do not 
know until we have had actual practical experience. It would cause 
a derangement — it would cause a decrease in the ])rices at the United 
States ports. It is a matter of supply and demand. 

Q. As a matter of fact, to-day the great majority of vessels are 
steam vessels or motor-propelled vessels, are they not ? — A. I do not 
think that is correct. It would be with the shore fishing people, but 
with longer voyages that is not true. 

Q. That is, the vessels that go to the Banks. AVe were told that the 
majority of vessels going out of Gloucester were steam. — A. That is 
shore fishing. 

Q. Those that go off to the Banks as well, we were told, were 
steam. — A. I believe that is true more generally of Gloucester. 

Q. As a matter of fact the number of steam vessels is increasing, 
is it not? — A. Yes — they are using i30wer vessels to a far greater 
-extent. 

Q. The practice of using power vessels is increasing, and will in- 
crease, I suppose? — A. I would imagine so — they are finding it more 
successful. 

Q. So that gradually the sailing vessels will disappear and the 
steam vessels will take their place — that will be the trend ? — A. That 
will depend on the S3'stem of fishing pursued. Going to the Banks 
:and lying at anchor it would appear to be no advantage; going for 
fresh fish the power is important. 

Q. In the fresh fishing ? — A. The sailing vessel will be superseded 
entirely by the steam or motor. The experience of other countries 
has been that they have longer distances to go as the grounds are de- 
pleted and they haA'e to employ the power vessels. 

Q. In the fresh-fish business that will be the tendency? — A. I 
would think so. 

Q. Having regard to the fresh-fish business, would it be an advan- 
tage to those Canadians who are engaged in that business if these 
restrictions that exist — the restriction that compels them to go to a 
Canadian port and to either transfer their catch to a trading vessel or 
to register as a trading vessel before they can go to an American port, 
and the restriction which compels them on leaving an American port 
to clear for a port in Canada — if this restriction were removed? — - 
A. Generally speaking — not always. 

Q. I understood you to say that perhaps the result might be to 
lower the, price of fish? — A. You can readily understand that if there 
was an increase in steam A^essels such as there has been — suppose there 



314 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. 

were a dozen or more added to the fleet already in Boston and these 
were all to go to the Boston market — it would flood the Boston and 
New York markets and leave the Canadian market bare. 

Q. Have you oiven consideration to the development of the fish 
marlcet in the United States ? — A. Just what does that imply ? 

Q. In the United States to-day the consumption of fish per head is 
18 pounds; in Canada the consumption of fish per head is 29 pounds; 
in Great Britain the consumption of fish per head is 58 pounds. 
The Government of the United States is impressing on people the 
value of fish as a food. In view of the small consumption of fish 
per head in the United States at the present time and the fact that 
there will be a scarcity of meat in the future, do you think that the 
market of the United States could be glutted by a few extra vessels 
carrying fish ? — A. It could be because it is such a perishable article. 
Even to-day, with the limited fleet they have, if they all land at 
once it has a very depressing effect on the prices, but they only last 
for a day or two. 

Q. I clo not think you have been following the great development 
going on in the United States recently. You say it might affect the 
fishing business, but it might have the effect of giving cheaper fish 
to the consumer — a benefit to the consumer but not a benefit to those 
engaged in the fishing business? — A. That is going to the other ex- 
treme. What I mean to say is that it is not a stable priced article 
like codfish — the price varies from day to day. The price of dry cod 
fish is approximately 10 cents-r-the variation in a month would not be 
more than half a dollar per quintal. Take haddock — two weeks ago 
to-clay in the Boston market it was selling at 11^ or 12 cents. A week 
later it sold for 6 cents. It is a matter of demand and supply. It 
operates so quickly that fresh fish has to be handled the day it is 
caught or the following day. 

Q. I want to get your opinion as to whether you consider it would 
be an advantage to Canadian fishermen or not if these restrictions 
were done away with? — ^A. I do; in a general way. 

Q. You have had the opportunity of observing the use to some 
extent that was made of Canadian ports by these American sailing 
vessels? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In your opinion woidd it be an advantage to the United States 
if that privilege was extended to vessels propelled by steam or 
motive power? — A. I do not think there is a question about it — it 
gives them a base of operations. Should anything happen to them — 
should they run short of supplies — and particularly if they have the 
right to sell their fish — if they struck boisterous weather on a fresh- 
fish trip they could land their catch and start afresh. 

Q. In your experience have you knoAvn of American vessels coming 
to Canadian ports and asking permission to sell their goods? — A. 
On many occasions, with and without licenses. 

Q. Under those conditions the department of marine and fisheries 
have granted them that privilege? — A. Yes. 

Q. Would you see anything objectionable in allowing those vessels 
to come to our harbors to repair their nets ? — A. No. 

Q. Or anything objectionable in allowing them to cure their fish 
when lying in our waters? — A. Under the new arrangement? 



AMEEICA^s^-CANADIAX FISHEEIES COI^FEEElSrCE. 315 

Q. Yes. — A. I think that shonkl be specified particiilarlj^ — the 
same as permission is granted to them to sell their fish. Probably it 
wonld be the only waj^ in "which they could care for the catch. 

Q. Those were points before iis — that the American fisherman was 
not allowed to repair his nets and that he could not cure his fish 
on his vessel when lying in Canadian waters. — A. I think they are 
justified in making that request. I do not understand why the ruling 
was made against the power schooner — very often it is the same 
vessel with the power aclded. 

Q. It has been the law for 30 years, and in 1904 the Government 
of that day passed a special order in council saying that this always 
had applied to vessels propelled by sail and was intended for that. 
I suppose at the time when the modus vivendi licenses were granted 
there were no power boats. — ^A. I think the United States first intro- 
duced the power boat — the Canadians hadn't any. 

Q. In a general way, Mr. "Wilson, if the Government of the 
United States is prepared to abolish those restrictions and to assist 
us in the enforcement of our lobster regulations, and are prepared 
to remove the restriction which makes it necessary for our vessels 
to go to a Canadian port from an American port before going to 
the fishing grounds and makes it impossible for us to return directly 
there: if they are willing to abolish those restrictions, would it. in 
your opinion, be a fair thing for us to extend the modus vivendi 
principle to vessels no matter how they are propelled — to abolish 
the license fee of $1.50 per ton and charge a mere nominal fee or 
no fee, and grant those vessels the same rights in our ports as far as 
the purchase of supplies are concerned as our own vessels, and 
permit them to sell their fish in Canadian ports? — A. "Would that 
include an open United States market as well? 

Q. Subject to any customs duty imposed. There is a duty of a 
cent a pound on fish coming into Canada. — A. I would say it could 
be done on an equitable basis. 

Q- You think that an arrangement might be worked out on an 
equitable basis ? — A. Yes. 

Q. "And one that would have the effect of allaying a certain amount 
of irritation that has prevailed for a long time? — A. And still, on 
the other hand, I think you would find among some skippers in 
Nova Scotia objection to their coming in and competing with them 
in scarce times for bait, but I think it would be to the mutual ad^ an- 
tage of both countries, sioeaking as a whole. 

Q. This question of expense of fishing operations — it was repre- 
sented to us by certain people very strongly in Boston that if such 
an arrangement was made with the two countries the American 
fishermen would be at very great disadvantage, because it cost the 
Canadian fisherman so much less to carry on his operations. Do you 
think there is anything in that argument ? — A. I do not think that 
position can be upheld for a moment. That has not been my experi- 
ence in fitting out steam trawlers. We can buy steel-wire rope in 
Boston for 21 cents. In Montreal to make it they Avanted 13.65 cents 
for making it. I do not know whether we would be entitled to have 
that entered as fishing gear, but the Boston fisherman can buy his rope 
for 24 cents as against our 14. We can buy cheaper in Great Britain. 



316 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. The whole lumber industry of British Columbia was in danger 
of being held up because they could not get rope. — A. The situation 
is ]iot quite so strenuous in that regard just now. 

Q. In nornuil times, under normal conditions? — A. The lines, 
hooks, and anchors — they have been invariably bought in the United 
States and entered here as fishing gear. The Canadian has the dis- 
advantage — the Canadian paj^s the transportation charges. The 
Canadian vessels, I have no doubt, are more economically managed 
than xVmerican vessels and for the reason that the owners are on 
boai'd. The captains and crews of the United States vessels are not 
so generally interested in the vessels. They are more wasteful and 
more elaborate in their expenditures generally.^ They do not take 
the same care of their dories and lines and bait — they are not so 
economical in cutting bait. I think the American fishermen as a 
whole will admit that. 

Q. These statements were made to us by men who were sailors — 
some of them captains — who were afraid that they would be at a 
disadvantage'^ — A. That is my opinion in regard to the thing — that 
they are more economically operated just for that reason — the own- 
ers are there themselves and they have not only a share interest but 
an owner's interest in pushing the thing. 

Q. Take the Balleine — the trawler you ha^'e — will any of the own- 
ers be on that? — A. No. 

Q. Is there a danger of those extravagances taking j)lace there? — 
A. Not to the same extent — the captains are paid such large per- 
centages that it is up to them. 

Q. (To Mr. Benjamin Smith.) Capt. Smith, what do you say re- 
garding that statement as to extravagances? — A. I think you will 
find I made such a remark the other day, that we could not run them 
as well. I spoke of vessels that I am familiar with being run out of 
Lunenburg — that I fitted in Gloucester — and on the same stock they 
would make much more money because they are run more econom- 
ically. 

Q. It is not due to the cost or the quality, but due to the more 
economical management ? — A. That is the only thing I can thiiik of 
right ott'hand — we get hooks down here cheaper. 

Mr. Wilson. With regard to the vessels — the life of the Lunen- 
burg vessel is (mly about half the length of the Gloucester vessel. 

By Chief Justice Hazen: 

Q. The Lunenburg vessel is more expensive. Its first cost is more 
and it does not last nearlj'' as long, and if that is the case the argu- 
ment advanced to us by gentlemen in Gloucester falls to the 
ground? — A. Under prewar conditions the Lunenburg vessel cost 
less. 

Q. Was that true up to the outbreak of war in 1914? — A. Yes. 

By Secretary Redfield: 
Q. How much less? — A. The hull and spars could be built for 
from ten to tAvelve thousand dollars. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 
Q. Before the war? — A. Yes. 



AMEEICAS^-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEEN-CE. 3lT 

Q. (To Capt. Benjamin A. Smith.) I presume the cost of vessels in 
the United States has gone np xerj much since the war broke out? — 
A. Yes. it has — not so much, however. 

By Secretary Redfield: 

Q. I think it would be of interest to Mr. Wilson to follow out a 
little further what Mr. Chief Justice Hazen said about the develop- 
ment of the United States markets for fish. I think it unlikely that 
there will remain much longer any chance for gluts in the United 
States fish markets. With 100,000,000 of people we are consuming 
about 2,000.000.000 pounds of fish.— A. Fresh fish ? 

Q. Of all kinds. Great Britain with 45,000,000 of people is con- 
suming 4.000,000.000 pounds of fish. The effort of our Government 
is very strongly exerted to increase the demand for fish food. If 
we brought our consumption of fish up to the Canadian level it would 
call for a billion and a half pounds of fish more per annum. If we 
brought it up to the English level it would call for an increase of 
at least 4,000,000,000. In other words our consumption would be 
nudtiplied by three. These are approximate figures but are within 
the truth. To show what is possible — Dr. Smith's service within 
20 to 24 months, with one man in the field, at a total cost of $20,000, 
with some office help, has introduced and placed for consumj^tion 
50,000,000 pounds of unused fish food. Fresh fish is being sold as 
far west Denver, Colo., regularly to-day. We offered to put at 
Government expense a first-class man at work in the Mississippi 
Eiver Valley to preach the gospel — use more fish. Very candidly 
the only doubt we have in undertaking such a campaign is whether 
or not there are enough vessels in Canada and the United States to 
supply the demand which is perfectly feasible may arise. It is per- 
fectly possible in a very few years to increase the demand for fish 
food in the United States to a point where it will call for at least 
six billion pounds instead of two. Indeed it seems to us entirely 
necessary, for our meat supply can not for 30 years be brought 
back to where it was before, and we must have the fish food to take 
its place. We regard it as an absolute duty of the Government to 
enter into an active campaign for development of the fish food 
market. — A. The figures you have given are no doubt for the cured 
fish. The conditions will have to change with the demand, and 
while you have a population of 100,000.000 and Canada 10,000,000, 
the suppliers of fresh fish from the Atlantic seaboard only reach a 
very small proportion. The quantities that go outside of the large 
centers in the immediate East do not amount to much. 

Q. You are mistaken with regard to that. I had a contractor 
come to me and offer to supply fresh tiles from Boston and New 
York — a million pounds at 4 cents — to our army in San Antonio, 
Tex., and a concern we met in Boston is regularly supplying St. 
Louis with fresh fish. The whole transportation system of the 
country has got to be adjusted, and I have offered to arrange to have 
it done, but the point that seems to me important to have in mind 
is that the past affords no basis of reasoning whatever for the 
future. — A. I admit the possibilities. It is just a question of getting 
the transportation. When you get that it is just a question of 
multiplying. It may be some little time yet, however, before we 
can sret it. 



318 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. 

Q, There has been ahnost no attempt to develop the fresh-fish 
market in the United States, whereas there are 70,000,000 of peo- 
ple easily to be reached over night from Boston and Gloucester. — 
A. We are perhaps a little more «flisadvantageously situated b}^ way 
of distance from our larger commercial centers. We have a longer 
haul and it has been a more difficult problem, but even with those 
difficult problems we have made considerable headway. 

Q. What I am speaking of is what seems a negligence on our 
part. For example, take the great centers around Pittsburgh. There 
are millions of people there and I doubt very much if there is any 
single shop in which fish is sold every day in the week. Do yor 
know of any place, Mr. Smith? 

Capt. Ben.taimin A. Smith. No, I do not think there is any place. 

Secretary Redfield. It is very much to be doubted if you went to 
buy fresh fish there on Tuesday or Wednesday whether you could 
get it. 

By Mr. Sw'eet: 

Q. You laid considerable stress upon the fluctuations in the price 
of fresh fish on account of their perishability ? — A. Yes. 

Q. Is not that to a considerable extent being obviated by the grow- 
ing popularity of frozen fish ? — A. To some extent. 

Q. Is not that a good solution — do you not look upon it as a pi-ob- 
able solution of the difficulties arising from the perishability of 
fresh fii-h? — A. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that at 
the present time the prices would not go back to prewar prices on 
account of that — because there is a developed market for frozen fish. 

Q, Is not that to a considerable extent also a matter of education 
in the use of frozen fish? — A. It is a matter of killing a prejudice. 

Q. And of knowing how to thaw them and use them immedi- 
iitely? — A. How to cook them. We have had that trouble in the 
soldiers' camps — while the outside was cooked the inside was raw, 
and naturally the troops Avould object to it. Perfectly good sound 
fish treated in that way. Then there are so many varieties of table 
fish wasted. 

Chief Justice Hazen. There are tremendous quantities of the 
much-despised dogfish being used now. 

By Dr. Smith : 
Q. You and others from the maritime Piovinces may be inter- 
ested in knowing the results of some experiments made in the 
United States in a comparatively short time, to determine the actiuil 
food value of frozen fish. We have a strong prejudice against 
frozen fish that exists here, and we have conducted some experiments 
to determine whether that prejudice is well founded, and it has been 
determined by most impartial experts that fish in a perfectly fresh 
condition frozen properly are at the expiration of eight or nine 
months the equal in every respect of the same fish just taken out of 
the water. The tests have been such as to indicate that people who 
did not know what they were eating- were unable to distinguish fish 
frozen nine or ten months from fish just out of the water.^4. These 
people that did not know what they were eating — were they capaldc 
or judging fresh fish? 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 319 

Q. Intelligent people accustxjmed to eating fish — their opinions are 
worth}' of consideration. The fish must be frozen Avhen perfectly 
fresh. — A. What we call alive. 

Q. And the fish must be properly' thawed out before the time to 
cook it ? — A. And properly cared for in cold storage. 

Q. That would indicate a very large opportunity in the way of the 
development of the frozen-fish business ( — A. I think the industry 
deserves what it gets in the way of prejudice because of the way it 
has been handled in the past. I think those in charge of the cold 
storages are mainlj^ to blame for it. 

Mr. Brittain. I think they deserve credit for putting it on the 
map. It has been the cold-storage plants on the coast that have de- 
veloped and introduced this frozen fish. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Have 3'ou anything more you would like to 
add, Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Wilson. I would like to plead with you to come to Nova 
Scotia and hold a hearing in Halifax to get the views of the Bank 
fleet and the lobster industry. If we can make an amicable arrange- 
ment whereby the lobster industry can be conserved ,for the future. 
I think it would do a great deal for Canada and the United States. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We will certainly take your request into 
consideration. If the United States should pass a law that would 
prevent any lobster being caught or any lobster being taken into the 
United States market less than 10^ inches long, would you favor the 
passage of a similar law in Canada for the coast of New Brunswick 
and Nova Scotia west of Halifax? A laAv that would prevent any 
lobster being caught or exported less than 10^ inches in length? 

Mr. Wilson. I have not thought of that. 

Chief Justice Hazen. That would mean the abolition of every 
cannery west of Halifax. There are no canneries now in Charlotte 
and St. John Counties. There have been canneries in the past, but 
the size limit now for Icbsters in Charlotte County is 10^ inches and 
in St. John County 9 inches. Nine inches is the size to-claj^ that can be 
taken into Boston. They can do better business by shipping the lob- 
sters alive into the markets of the different cities. You have no 
size limit for the lobsters caught along the south shore of Nova Scotia 
from Halifax to the west — they can everything, and the result is that 
the lobsters are disappearing. Wouldn't it be better for the people 
there to turn their attention to the live lobster trade, to the catching 
of those lobsters of sufficient size, in order that they may be sent to 
the markets of different cities, and while the canneries would have to 
disappear, in the space of a few years the people would be better off 
than to-day, and would it not have the effect of bringing back the 
lobster which otherwise in a few years will be gone? — A. I think, 
speaking from the lobster standpoint, that the lobster indus^rry would 
benefit materially and in a few years time they would easily double 
in value — the lobster fisheries — I would say in 10 j'^ears, because the 
lobster is of slow growth. 

Q. Another question is that of propagation. We were given figures 
along this line in Boston. Suppose a lobster of 8 inches produces 
10 000 eggs, a lobster of 10 inches will produce 20.000, and a lobster 
of 12 inches 40,000 — it goes on increasing by arithmetical progres- 
sion. People in Boston said they would not only have a minimum 
size but they would have a maximum size, because the large lobsters 



320 AMERICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

were not as marketable— not as great a delicacy, and in addition tO' 
that whenever you took a large lobster you were taking a lobster of 
marvelous reproductive capacity. — A. When a lobster gets beyond 13 
or 14 inches you seldom find them bearing eggs. 

Q. There is a limit to productive capacity — when you get over 10^ 
inches you find the lobster having the greatest productive capacity — 
you have a tremendous difference in the number of eggs. — A. About 
every inch doubles the number of eggs. 

Q. It is a fact that those larger lobsters are the least satisfactory 
to handle in the trade? — A. After 14 or 15 inches they get coarse. A 
maximum size, I think, would take care of conditions. 

Q. If you did not allow anything caught under 10-| inches, I think 
you would have a tremendous increase ? — A. That would be the time 
to bring in the maximum size. 

Q. Generally speaking you would say that Avould be a benefit to the 
lobster industry? — A. Yes. 

Q. If you are going to save the lobster industry you have not got 
to deal with special or local interests? — A. Still you must remember- 
that a man or company of men that have been given a license to can 
lobsters and then have it taken away, some compensation should be 
allowed. 

Q. That is being done very largely in other business. — A. They are 
all supposed to have got enough to retire. I am not at all interested 
in the lobster industry, but I know" that is the situation. 

Q. What amount of money is invested in an ordinary lobster can- 
nery ? — A. The Eobert Simpson factory is worth five or six thousand 
dollars. The larger lobsters are exported and the small ones packed. 

Mr. Brittain. Mr. Chief Justice, in connection with some re- 
marks brought out by the Honorable Mr. Redfield regarding the 
development of the market for fish in the United States farther 
West — such as in St.. Louis and Pittsburgh, is it not a fact that the 
development has taken place within the last three years, and is it not 
a fact that that development has taken place through the efforts of 
the United States Government departments in advertising or in 
other methods of encouraging the consumption of fish as a food? 

Secretaiy Eedfield. That is very largely true, Mr. Brittain, There 
are some concerns in the fresh fish business that have shown a gi'eat 
deal of enterprise — have sent their men — have known how to en- 
list the women's organizations in their behalf and taken it up in a 
thoroughly intelligent way. I am speaking of fresh fish. At the 
same time I do not think that has been anything like as widespread 
as it is possible it might be. Whereas Dr. Smith's service has been 
extremely active but with very small means, and when I speak of 
what has been done inducing the people to use fish, the sum he had 
to work with over a period of two years was $25,000. It was largely 
the work of the man in the field. It was tactfully dene — for in- 
stance we would furnish placards and posters bearing the Govern- 
ment name which we would supply to a town in recommending cer- 
tain fish food, furnish a cookbook published by the United States 
Government in which women of prominence would contribute 
recipes — I know that my wife and the wife of the Postmaster Gen- 
eral furnished recipes — the articles were taken to the university — 
teachers of household economics — and given to people to eat there. 
The fish dealers were encouraged in the use of canned goods by 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 321 

allowing the use of a Government label stating that this article is 
approved by the United States Bureau of Fisheries. They used the 
label and kept the price down and the quality up. It worked to 
the extent that we put on the market an entirely unused food. As 
to the grey fish, we had one order for 43 carloads, which for lack 
of cans we could not fill. . . 

Mr. Bbittaix. I wanted to get back again to the question of m- 
creased production. I personally have always felt that the soft 
pedal has been on the production end, owing to the fact that we did 
not have sufficient markets, and the individual firms did not have 
the public sufficiently interested in fish as a food to enable us to in- 
crease our equipment and our supply. There is no doubt that we can 
increase our supply to an extent unknown at the present day. 

(Conference adjourned to '2.30 p. m.) 

AFTERXOON SESSIOX. 

STATEMENT BY MR. HAVELOCK WILSON, CANADIAN 
INSPECTOR OF CURED FISH. 

By Chief Justice Hazex : 

Q. You are in inspector of the Dominion Government under the 
Cured Fish Inspection Act?— A. Yes. 

Q. Your business is fishing is it not ?— A. It was previous to my 
appointment. 

Q. That has been your business for many years?— A. les. 

Q. Have j^ou ever fished for shad? — A. Yes. 

Q. And have cured shad, have you? — A. Yes. 

Q. What is the state of the shad fishery to-day as compared with- 
some years ago?— A. I have not been at the shad fishing of late 
vears/but there are two gentlemen here in the room who would be 
able to tell you. My understanding is that the shad fishery is about 
extinct here. 

Q. Has it been getting less of late years?— A. Every year it has 

Sfotten less. 

Q. Are there any shad U23 at the head of the Bay?— A. I have 
not seen anv up there. 

Q. If it goes on at the present ratio of decrease it means the nnal 
wiping out of the industry?— A. That is the feeling among the 
fishermen. 

Q. What is the feeling among the fishermen as to the steps to be 
taken to preserve the industry?— A. Those that have expressed 
themselves to me say that the fishing on the St. John Eiver up on 
the spawning grounds is the means of ruining the fishing, and of 
late years they have been allowing them to catch the come back 
shad— those that have been up and have spawned. A few years 
ago thev were not allowed to catch them. 

Q. They are caught probably outside by drifting?— A. In the har- 
bor bv weirs and drifters. 

Q. "For instance the fishermen at Pisarinco drift for shad, but they 
drift in the harbor also.— A. Yes. sir. and on the St. John Eiver as 
■vYell — they have set nets and they drift for them as well. 
.519.50—18 21 



322 AMEEICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. 

Q. You are s]Deaking from the standpoint of the harbor fishermen, 
and you sa}'' their idea is that the catching of shad should be stopped 
on the river? — A. On- the spawning grounds. 

Q. Where are the spawning grounds — on the Kennebecasis? — 
A. One man tokl uu^ this morning he thinks above the head of the 
reach. 

Q. They go up the Kennebecasis and the Washademoak ? — A. I 
think they do, but that would be above the head of the reach. 

Q. You would not suggest the prohibiting of catching them for a 
certain number of years. I understand in the Ignited States they 
restored the industry in that way. — A. I would be of the opinion 
that if they were stopped for a few yeai-s. or stopped on the spawning 
groundo, it Vt^ould rejdenish the fishery. 

Q. If you allowed the catching to go on around the harbor and 
the coast, if the fishing were prohibited on the spawning grounds, do 
you think that would be sufficient? — A. I do not know — the fisher- 
men themselves would be apt to know more about that. I have been 
out of it for four or five years. 

Q. You do not do any vessel fishing, do you ? — A. I have done 
it, 3^es. 

Q. Where have you fished with a vessel i! — xV. Down around Grand 
Manan. 

Q. You never Avent to the banks, did you? — A. No, nothing but 
that. 

By Secretary Hedfield : 

Q. What time do shad run here?— A. About the 10th of May 
wdien they start. 

Q. Are they caught b}'- pound nets or fixed weirs? — A. In our har- 
bor by Aveirs and drift nets. 

Secretary Eedfield. We had a rather interesting experience in that 
connection in the Potomac Kiver. Two years ago this coming spring 
v.-e got rather less than twenty million eggs at our hatchery and were 
considering the question of closing it. We found doAvn in Chesa- 
peake Bay that the weirs — the nets were so close together that they 
were like the teeth of a fine-tooth comb everywhere. We had no 
authority in our department to take those nets aAvay, but the War 
Department had authority to remove obstructions to navigation. 
We got an engineer who had vision enough to see that they ob- 
structed navigation. He cut 1.200 feet and 800 feet passages through 
them. The next year we got seventy million eggs in the hatchery, 
and the second year the small fishermen up on the Potomac Kiver, 
I think in eight weeks or thereabouts, on an investment of $150 to 
$200, made $750 to $1,100 as the result of one year's catch. 

Chief Justice IiA.zEN. The trouble with our fish hatchery here is 
to get sufficient eggs. They are a very delicate fish and you have to 
get your fish hatchery close to the spawning beds or j^ou are apt to 
kill them in handling them. 

By Dr. Smith : 
Q. What proportion of the total shad catch is taken in salt water 
and what proportion in fresh water? — A. I could not tell you. Mr. 
Brittain would be more apt to know about that. 



AMEEICAN-CAl^ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 323 

By Secretary Eedfield : 
Q. What are your duties as fish inspector, Mr. Wilson?— A. The 
act is not compulsory at the present time, but chiefly branding ale- 
-wives— inspecting and branding alewives— last year I only branded 
about 3,000 barrels. 

STATEMENT BY MR. HARRY BELYEA, FISHERMAN, OF ST. JOHN. 

By Mr. Found : 

Q. To what comparative extent are shad caught in the bay and 
in the weirs in the harbor as compared with the Upper St. John?— 
A. I am not in a position to say ; while I am a harbor fisherman, we 
fish weirs principally — we do' not catch very many shad in our 
weirs. Mr. Wilson can tell you with regard to above the falls and 
Mr. Leonard can give you any information about the harbor and 
outside fishing. . ,. . . . ^ 

Q. Would it be possible to prohibit the catchnig ot shad m the 
harbor where these weirs are operated? Could shad caught in these 
weirs be liberated alive ?— A. I do not believe it. 

Q. Are you familiar with the drifting out m the harbor? — A. i es. 

Q. What mesh of nets are used? — A. About S^-inch mesh. 

Q. And you are using these at a time when salmon are running?— 

A. Yes. 

Q. And fishing for shad or salmon ?— A. Well, shad. 

Q. You get some salmon? — A. An odd one. 

Q. If fishing for shad were prevented it would not be a hardship 
on the salmon fishing?— A. I don't really think it would. All the 
shad caught in the harbor of St. John these last few years put to- 
gether would not be a very big parcel. Shad fishing m my time 
has become almost extinct. 

Q. How many men are engaged in drifting for shad ^— A. in the 
harbor of St. John I would say 100 at the outside. 

Q. During what length of time— what portion of the year?— A. 
They start the 10th of May and end about the 24th of May. It is 
iust a short season. n ^ i ^ ^^ 

Q. You have not got figures as to the total catch of shad by these 
people here ? — A. No, I would not have. 
By Dr. Smith : 

Q. You require a particular kind of net?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If prevented from shad fishing that net would be of no use m 
any other branch?— A. Of no use. 
By Secretary Eedfield : 

Q. How expensive is it?— A. The shad nets used for drifting in 
the harbor would stand $30 or $35 a web. 

Q. That is the length of those nets?— A. They run about 20 
pounds — 220 yard webs. . 

Q. What is the mesh?— A. About 51. These weirs that we have 
reference to— in some places they may affect the shad fishing, but 
these weirs in the harbor are built on the shore— the law calls for 
inside of low water mark. Our weirs are not outside very ft-r— 
the law would not allow us. 



324 AMERICAIn -CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEBEI^rOE. 

By Mr. Found: 

Q. You said these nets used for drifting for shad are not used for 
any other kind of fishing — hoAv about drifting for salmon? — A. We 
use a different twine aUogether. The only way Ave catch a salmon in 
the shad nets is if he gets this fine web in his teeth — we then over- 
haul the net and get him quick enough. 

Q. Are you familiar with conditions on the Petitcodiac? — A. No. 

Q. The reason I ask is that up in that part of the country we 
have the greatest difficulty possible in preventing fishing salmon 
with shad nets under the cloak of shad fishing.- — A. A man who 
fishes shad in the harbor, if he caught ten salmon in a shad net in the 
course of a season fishing for shad he would consider he was doing 
very well. 

By Dr. Smith : 
Q. What was the average catch of shad per net last season? — A. 
I would say about ten hundred — I was not fishing shad myself. 

By Secretary Redfield: 
Q. How long is the season? — A. Tavo or three Aveeks is the limit. 

By Mr. Found: 
Q. It would be a perfectly feasible proposition to prohibit shad 
drifting, but it avouIcI be a difficult matter to prohibit the capture 
of shad in weirs ? — A. Practically speaking, the shad fishing done in 
the Aveirs amounts to nothing. For instance, I have tAvo weirs — if I 
get 300 shad I Avould be doing Avell. They are not constructed for 
that purpose. 

By Dr. Smith: 
Q. What is the principal fish taken in the Aveirs? — A. Gaspereau 
or alewives. 

By Mr. Found : 

Q. The difficulty is that if shad fishing is prohibited in other Avays, 
these feAv shad caught in the weirs could not be put on the markets. — 
A. It Avould be an impossibility to liberate a shad from the Aveirs. 
A shad will not stand any handling and live. I have seen at neap 
tides a shad left in three feet of Avater. Before the next tide they 
Avould turn red around the gills and head — they practically die. 
These same boxes that we put 50 salmon in to keep them, if you put 
one shad in there the next day he is keeled over. They won't stand 
confinement or handling. They are not ready to spawn Avhen Ave get 
them. 

Q. The total quantity of shad caught in New Brunswick last year 
Avas 3,287 pounds in Aveight.^ — A. I don't really see that it Avould cut 
much figure if they Avere prohibited for a feAv years. It Avould be 
a benefit. We haA^e never seen any real benefit from this shad 
hatchery yet in this part of the country. They haA^e been catching 
these shad on the spawning ground principally. Those shad they 
catch there are these female shad Avhich are full of roe. A large 
percentage of those we get here are buck shad. We Avant to save those 
on the spaA\'ning ground. They have been around there catching 
shad after they have spaAvned — they catch them coming doAvn. They 
are not a A^ery nice fish. They split them and salt them. They are 
very white looking after they are salted. 



AMEBIC AN-CAIfADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 325 

By Dr. Smith: 
Q. ^YhJ do you not catch the female shad? — A. There does not 
seem to be the percentage of them. We catch a large percentage of 
male shad. Whether they get by or how they arrive there I don't 
know. I have only drifted for them in the harbor and what we get 
in the weirs. 

STATEMENT BY ROBERT E. WILSON, FISHERMAN, OF ST. JOHN. 

By Mr. Found: 

Q. You have been working in connection with the hatchery during 
the last year or so? — A. Yes; I have caught shad for Mr. Walker at 
Darling's lake and in the Washademoak. 

Q. You have been fishing up river on what have been referred to 
here as the spawning grounds for some years past ? — A. Yes. 

Q. What are your catches up there each year per net? — A. The 
last year I was up about 1.600 and some odd shad for 12 days — 
we had 500 and some odd in one night. 

Q. Were any other fish caught during the time you were fishing 
.for shad? — A. We caught two salmon in that time. 

Q. Is there am^ shad fishing carried on later on in the season — 
ostensibly shad fishing when salmon are fished for ? — A. Xo ; the onl}^ 
thing is they fish them as long as they get one — they do both farm- 
ing and fishing. 

Q. How many people engage usually in shad fishing during the 
spring season ? — A. The way to find out is to find how many farmers 
there are from the head of the falls to Fredericton. Every farmer 
has a net or so. 

Q. Each one drifting? — A. All set — no drifting on the St. John 
Kiver. 

Q. So the fact of the matter is that it is not a very important mat- 
ter to anyone at the present time — the shad fishery? — A. No. only 
of course there are a good many fishermen making a good dollar out 
of it. Last year was a poor year, but I think we fished 250 or 300 for 
the short season. As far as stopping the shad fishing. I think below 
the falls it does not matter. It is the roe shad they catch up there — 
we cannot catch them here — we only fish 5^ nets — we get the buck 
shad here. The nets up there lay in the bottom and those big shad 
drift in them. 

Q. Are you a land owner up the river ? — A. Xo. I belong in the 
city. It would be a good thing if something were done on the spawn- 
ing grounds from the reach up that would do away with those fish 
that destroy the shad. The eggs come up and go along the shores 
sometimes an inch thick all over the shores, and there are millions 
of ruined eggs. The shad that die drop out of the net and in nine 
days' time then come up. In the Washademoak Lake I would say 
there would be 50 of those short nets — after they are fished a couple 
of weeks you see those big shad come up. The reason the hatchery 
could not get the amount of eggs, a shad meshed in the net the eels 
eat him — if a shad dies the eels won't bother him. 

By Dr. Smith: 
Q. When are these nets fished? — A. Fished all at night time. 
Q. Visited at night or only the next morning?- -A. All night, 



326 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

about every two hours. At one time I got 500 shad and loaded a 17-foot 
skiif boat, and I think down here you would have to take 1,200 or 1,500 
shad to load it. We barreled them up and delivered them — over half 
a barrel of ripe spawn ran out of these. 

By Mr. Found : 

Q. They would not exude good fertile eggs at the moment you 
caught them? — A. That is, if the hatchery had been right there — I 
have caught 200 shad one night and got 58 spawn out of them. 

Q. Was that your experience generally? — A. I examined every 
one — I only got 10 cents apiece for each shad — ^buck and roe. 

Q. That was a high percentage of spawning shad to find? — A. 
That was a very good run that night. 

By Dr. Smith : 

Q. What is the largest number of eggs taken at the hatchery in any 
(me season ? — A. I couldn't exactly say — I think it was a little over a 
million one year and not quite a million another year. 

Q. All of our eggs at all of the hatcheries we operate are obtained 
from the fishermen. We have the spawn takers who visit the fisher- 
men when attending their nets and our own men take the eggs and^ 
fertilize them and pay the fishermen $20 a million for the eggs. 
When the eggs are taken from a fine roe shad it somewhat impairs 
its sale value and in order to keep on the good side of the fishermen 
and encoui'age them we pay them foi' the good eggs which we obtain 
from them. — A. Sixty thousand is about the average of a shad that 
is a good spawner. 

Q. They run all the way from ten to ninety thousand, and prob- 
ably woiild average 30,000 in the Potomac River. — A. You get a shad 
that is ready to sj^awn — if you get all the eggs you get about 60,000. 

Q. Is most fishing clone at the spawning grounds? — A. Yes; the 
biggest part of it. 

Q. Is a million eggs or so the largest number taken in any one 
year for the hatchery? — A. I think there Avas one year it ran a 
million or a little more. 

Q. Are the fishermen paid anything for the eggs ? — A. Ten cents a 
shad. I was offered 25 cents the last year. 

Q. Are the eggs collected by people from the hatchery ? — A. I got 
5 cents more for squeezing my own shad. 

Q. Would the fishermen up the river know how to take and fer- 
tilize eggs? — A. No; it was something neAV to them. I had to have 
my own ponds. You can pretty nearly tell once 3'OU put the fer- 
tilizer and the water on them — the bad eggs turn white and float up. 

[See Exhibit Y (page 382), order in council snliseqiiently passed estal)lish- 
ing closed season for shad iu Kay of ^'iiiidy. | 

STATEMENT BY MR. WALTER LEONARD, PRESIDENT OF THE 
LEONARD FISHERIES CO., ST. JOHN. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 
Q. You live in St. John? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is the fishing company you are connected with ? — A. The 
Leonard Fisheries Co. 

Q. Are jou an officer in that company? — Jl. I am president. 
Q. That company has an office in Montreal ? — A. Yes. 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX TISHEEIES CONFERENCE, 327 

Q. And an office in Digby? — A. Hawksbury, Canso, and Halifax. 

Q. How long have you been engaged in the fishing business? — A. 

I am about out of it. I have not taken much interest these last 

years, but as far as shad are concerned I consider them about extinct. 

We can not get enough for the local trade, let alone shipping them. 

Q. They can hardly be considered from a commercial stand- 
point? — A. No. 

Q. Would you be in fa's or of absolutely prohibiting the catching of 
sliad for a number of years? — A. I certainly Avould be. 

Q. Do you know of any other measure that might be taken to 
prevent the total destruction? — A. No. I have never taken any 
great interest in them. I think our friend Cr.lder, also Mr. Brittain, 
would be pretty familiar with the shad i^art of it. 

Q. You own vessels, do you, in your company? — A. Not at the 
present time. There are smacks and small vessels for collecting fish. 
Q. Do you do any business with the American market? — A. In 
some branches we do, sir. 

Q. Have you in the past? — A. More or less for many years. 
Q. What fish have you been selling in the United States' 
market? — A. Late years? 

Q. Yes?. — A. Since we amalgamated with the different concerns — 
it has been only about a little over a year. Some sections — take the 
western United States — we send quite a few smoked fish, hadclies, 
there. 

Q. These fish are dutiable in the United States? — A. Yes, the 
baddies are. 

Q. Has your attention been called. Mr. Leonard, to the restric- 
tions that are imposed on Canadian fishing vessels going into the 
United States? — A. Only Avhat we have read, sir. 

Q. You are aware that a Canadian vessel can not take its cargo 
direct to the United States. It has to go to a Canadian port first 
and then either transfer its load to a merchant vessel or itself get 
registered as a merchant vessel? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And a Canadian fishing- vessel can not clear for the fishing 
grounds direct from an American port, but has to come to a Cana- 
dian port first and take its clearance from t]\ere? — A. Yes, sir: I 
understand. 

Q. From your experience in the fishing business would you re- 
gard it as an advantage not to have those restrictions? — A^. There 
is no doubt about it. 

Q. The advantage would be that the vessels could get to the fish- 
ing grounds more quickly and catch more fish. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Consequently there 'would be a saving of expense? — A. I think 
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brittain covered that pretty well. 
_ Q. There is nothing that you would care to add to that ? — A. No. 
sir. 

Q. You say that they covered that pretty well. Are you in accord 
with their views? — A. I am, sir. 

Q. Do you also agree with their views with regard to the using: 
of Canadian ports by American vessels? — A. In a thing of this kind 
it is necessary to give and take. 

Q. Would you think it was a pretty fair arrangement if in ex- 
change for allowing Americans to use our ports in the way we have 



328 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

talked about today, thej' were to give us access to their markets by 
removing the disabilities that exist at the present time? Would 
that be a fair arrangement ? — A. I think so, sir. 

Q. Are you engaged in lobster fishing at all, Mr. Leonard? — A. 
No, sir. 

Q. You know that the lobster fishing has fallen off* a great deal 
of late years? — A. I have no doubt of that, sir. 

Q. Would you suggest any remedy for that state of affairs? — 
A. I thought that idea that you threw out before we went to lunch a 
good one, to close the whole business for two or three years not only 
in Canada, but in the United States. 

Q. What I suggested Avas that nobody should be allowed to catch 
lobsters or to have them in their possession that were less than 10^ 
inches in length. With that was involved the closing of the lob- 
ster canneries along the coast from Halifax this way. — A. That 
"U'Ould leave a very small percentage to be caught. 

Q. It would at first, but they would grow? — A. Xo doubt. 

Q. Do you think that would be an effective way of dealing with 
the matter? — A. I think that wouhl be feasible. 

Q. There are parts of the coast where you could not do that, but 
on the Nova Scotia coast they can send their fish fresh. — A. How 
would it do to can those large ones? 

Q. Would you advocate letting them can, 1)ut catch nothing but 
those 104^ inches and over? — A. Yes. 

Q. In Charlotte County the law is nothing caught less than 10^} 
inches. The fishermen find it pays thein better to send them fresh 
to the markets. In St. John County the size is 9 inches, and no 
lobster is admitted to the Boston market less than that size. There 
are no canneries here because there is a good market for all fresh 
fish. — A. Of course the Boston market would prohibit that, anyway. 

Q. In the State of Maine they are not allowed to catch lobsters 
less than 104 inches, and I understand the fishermen there are all in 
favor of maintaining that for the reason that a 10^-inch lobster 
is a better fish than a 9 inch one. and it also deposits more eggs. 
The result is it keeps up the business better. Is there anything you 
would like to say, Mr. Leonard, with regard to this? — A. No, sir; 
I don't know very much about this lobster end of it. 

Q. About our relations with the United States with regard to 
fisheries? — A. As I told you before. I thought Mr. Wilson and Mr. 
Brittain covered that pretty well. 

By Secretary Eedfield. : 

Q. I would like to ask if you in your operations have ever run 
across a law of the United States which requires a Canadian vessel 
wdiich passes through the territorial waters of the United States to 
register at the customhouse of the first port she enters? — A. No; I 
don't know of it, sir. 

Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you know that. Mr. Brittain. in your 
operations? — A. We did have some trouble a few years ago sending 
fi trawler into New York. 

Q. She ])robably i-an through Long Island Sound. 

Q. (To Mr. Gardner.) Mr. Gardner, have you ever had occasion 
to run up against that? — A. No; I don't think so, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. It is an old law passed in 1840 somewhere, in- 
tended to prevent smuggling, but it happens to be the law which is 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 329 

utilized in Alaska to-day under which Canadian vessels coming up the 
inside passage, which the^^ practically are obliged to do there, have to 
go into the American port of Ketchikan and register and take a clear- 
ance to any port they want. We had supposed that law was prac- 
tically a dead law upon the Atlantic coast, but on inquiry at the city 
of Portland, which a Canadian vessel might conceivably enter from 
the eastward bj^ going into Gasco Bay. we found there were some 
30 or 40 occasions in a year where a Canadian vessel has to go through 
that performance. She reports herself and goes away again, but 
she has got to go through that performance. 

Mr. Leonard. That would be too slow for the fish business. 

Mr. Calder called (not present). 

Mr. Gardner. One of the arguments put up was to the effect that 
our accommodations for the crews were made in tiers of three or 
more berths, and therefore that Ave took up very much less room than 
the American vessels did for the accommodation of the crews, which 
gave us very much more space for the cargo and therefore that we 
could accuniulate and get a larger cargo than American vessels. I 
would like to deny that. The accommodations are exactly on the 
same basis as our American friends' are. 

Secretary Redfield. How are they arranged ? 

Mr. Gardner. Two berths high, with a bunker as we call it along 
the side. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Is there any provision for hospital accommo- 
dation ? 

Mr. Gardner. Nothing further than that each vessel carries a 
medicine chest, and I think that there is something laid down in the 
law^s as to what this medicine chest must contain. 

Chief Justice Hazen. No place set apart where an ill man may be 
placed ? 

Mr. Gardner. No. 

Secretary Redfield. Have you a law providing a certain number 
of cubic feet per man in the sleeping quarters^ 

Mr. Gardner. I do not know that there is any law making us 
have it, but I think that we have plenty of space. I am sure if you 
went into one of those vessels and saw the space provided you would 
find we were providing the same amount of space. Probably we 
have caught it from the x\.merican accommodation. Generally 8 
men are accommodated in what we call the cabin and 12 in the fore- 
castle, and they seem to be very spacious quarters and plenty of 
accommodation. 

Secretary Redfield. It is a matter covered by the seamen's law of 
the United States. In that law we prohibit them from accommodating- 
seamen more than two berths high. A great many of the merchant 
vessels are more than three high, and the lake vessels. 

Mr. Qligley. Our seamen's law, however, in this particular does 
not apply to boats of less than 100 tons, and only to those over that 
tonnage constructed after the passage of the seamen's act. 

Secretary Redfield (to Mr. Benjamin Smith). Mr. Smith, have 
jou supplied bait from Gloucester to Canadian points? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell us what your experience in supi)lying bait has been — how 
it came about and the extent to which you have done it and where ? — 
A. We accumulate a lot of fish in July since we have the cold 



330 AMEElCAN-CAlsrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 

storages in Provincetown and Gloucester, and when bait is scarce in 
NeAvfoiindland or when the Lunenburg fleet want to fit out their 
bankers, if they are a little short of herring bait which they used to 
use, they generally secure it from Provincetown or Gloucester. I have 
shippecl it down to Newfoundland and I think I have shipped it 
down to Lunenburg. I have sent a cargo down to Newfoundland 
of two or three hundred thousand pounds — only to fit out the first 
bankers about this time of j^ear. We have three bankers now fitting 
out, and we have a vessel loading in Gloucester. That is frozen 
squid we send down to them. We have also supplied the French at 
St. Pierre from our cold storage. We sent half a million pounds 
down one year when bait happened to be scarce in the early part 
of the 3^ear. 

Q. Is this bait that you speak of squid ? — A. Yes, sir. I sent some 
herring down to Newfoundland three years ago that I secured on the 
Pacific coast — frozen herring — thirty or forty thousand pounds. 

Q. On this matter of accommodations that Mr. Gardner kindly 
tolcl us about, are j'our vessels equipped two high? — A. Yes, sir; 
practically no difference between our bankers as far as equipment 
goes. Our beam trawlers — I do not know what the point was about 
being three high. 

Q. It is forbidden by the seamen's law in the United States to- 
accommodate seamen more than two high in vessels built after the 
passing of the law, of more than 100 tons; there is some question as 
to whether that is not retroactive. 

Mr. QuiGLEY. The only time it came up in court was in the South- 
ern District of New York, and the court sustained our view that it 
was not retroactive. 

By Secretary Redfield. 

Q. After the passage of that act j^ou v>'ould have to alter the accom- 
modations? — A. I do not remember ever seeing fishing vessels n.iore 
than two high. 

Q. I would like to ask Mr. Wilson as to the custom in Halifax? — 
A. None of the fishing vessels of Nova Scotia of 100 tons or more 
have the berths more than two high. Some of the boats are too 
cramped for more than two. LTsuall}- there is a boot locker in addi- 
tion, or the space is used for storage purposes if it is more than two 
high — in the nature of a shelf or rack. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN F. CALDES, INSPECTOE OF FISHEEIES. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 

Q. You are inspector of fisheries for this district, Mr. Calder? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were here this morning when there was some discussion 
about the lobster regulations, I think ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From your own experience are the lobsters increasing or de- 
creasing along the coast of the maritime provinces? — A. Decreasing. 

Q. Are they increasing or decreasing along the coast of Maine? — 
A. Decreasing. 

Q. Are they decreasing in Charlotte County ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has there been any improvement in the state of affairs in St. 
John County since all canning vs'-as stopped in those counties and the 



AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEKENCE. 331 

size limit was fixed at 10| inches in Charlotte and 9^ inches in St. 
John County? — A. My answer would be this: That for the second 
year after the law was passed there was a marked improA'ement. Un- 
fortunately, on my oayu recommendation — I will assume full respon- 
sibility — the open season was made too long; therefore, we are not 
getting the full benefit from a IQi-inch law for the proper open 
season. The first season we knocked off 9-inch lobsters was 1909, and 
it stands to reason the catch fell off. The following year, when those 
lobsters not taken that year arrived at 10-J- inches, the fishing in- 
creased wonderfully, and it looked to me at that time as if it was 
going to continue to do so. Unfortunately, that year we took too 
many, and each succeeding j^ear, to the extent that our fisheries are 
not holding out. 

Q,. What do you say is the best limit? — A. Ten and one-half inches. 
Witli regard to the Maine coast, there is a reason which is apparent 
why their fisheries can stand a longer open season than ours. During 
the winter and spring months their smacks go down here and pur- 
chase lobsters. They take them home and put them in their pounds. 
They select the lobsters in which berries are shown during the sum- 
mer, and these are sent to the hatcheries. As a result of that the 
Maine coast gets the benefit of their own berry lobsters and a large 
portion of the lolisters from the maritime provinces. 

Q. How do they get those lobsters? — A. With well smacks. 

Q. What are they doing at that season of the year? — ^A. Going for 
the purpose of buying lobsters for the pounds. 

Q. During the open season ? — ^A. During our open season — putting 
them in their retaining pounds. At the proper time in a large num- 
ber of cases the female lobsters exude spawn. 

Q. Are there many of these retaining pounds in the State of 
Maine ? — A. I have not the figures before me but from my own knowl- 
edge I would say, offhand, a dozen. 

Q. Even with that you say the lobster fishing in the State of Maine 
is falling off? — A. Yes. My opinion is that the season is too long. 
Their season is practicall}^ the year round. Ours is too long. 

Q. How long is j^ours? — A. In the county of Charlotte from the 
loth day of November to the 1st day of June. I have been a great 
advocate of the 10|-inch size limit. I am yet, but I have recently ar- 
rived at the conclusion that the best thing to do is to have the 9-inch 
size limit — the size limit in Massachusetts — westward from Canso, 
Nova Scotia, but to protect the lobsters by a very short open season. 
For instance, allow fishing for lobsters from December 15 to April 
15, on our coasts. That would confine the fishing to a period when 
there is practically no other fishing to be done — at a time when the 
lobsters can be best handled, at a time when they are needed the most 
as an article of food. I will admit that I have always recommended 
10|-inch size limit, but if you are going to have a uniform regulation 
I would suggest that it be the 9 inches. 

By Secretary Eedfield : 
Q. But you couple with the 9 inches the short season ; you would 
not approve one without the other? — A. No, sir. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 
Q. Would you believe in a maximum size for lobsters ? — A. No, sir. 
The larger the lobster the more spawn they carry. It seems to me 



332 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

that part of the question would look after itself. I think the great 
protection is the short season. 

Q. You speak of an open season from December to April. Would 
you have a uniform open season clear from Halifax around the coast, 
including Charlotte County? — A. I would. 

Q. At the present time the seasons are different ? — A. In St. John 
and Charlotte Counties. While the uniform season may bear a little 
hard on some little locality, as you well said this morning, you have 
got to consider the fishery as an entirety — if you are going to do 
anything for the conservation of the lobster industry you have got 
to make a workable law which applies to all sections. 

Q. Why is it not possible to have the open season different — that 
out from Halifax one season and Charlotte and St. John another — 
why is that not possible ? — A. It would be possible. 

Q. What is the advantae of having it just one season? — A. The 
advantage is this: it is easier to enforce the regulations because of 
the simplicity of the thing. 

Q. Do you think it would be easier to enforce the law and more 
effective if the laws in the States that produce lobsters along the 
Atlantic seaboards were made similar to ours? — A. Decidedlj^ so. 
Our great trouble in Charlotte County is that it is situated close to 
the United States border and it is pretty hard to watch people all 
the time. Frequently they succeed in getting small lobsters across 
and shipped through to Massachusetts. That is one of the reasons 
why I advocated a 9-inch size — the general market in the Ignited 
States demands a 9-inch lobster. 

Q. In your opinion, if there was a 9-inch law applying to the 
lobster States and to Canada, and if there was a season of four 
months in both countries. Would that lead to a restoration of the 
lobster fishery? Would it prevent its destruction aiid cause it to 
increase? — A. In my opinion it would. 

Q. Suppose you make the size 10^ inches. Suppose they pass a 
law in Boston that no lobster of less than 10^ inches shall come in. 
Suppose that we pass laws preventing the catching of lobsters of less 
than 10^ inches, in a j^ear or two what do you think the effect of that 
would be? — A. Why, a decided improvement. 

Q. And would make the industry much more profitable ? — A. That 
would really be very much better than the 9-inch size, considering 
only the fishery. 

Q. You were bearing in mind that the 9-inch size was the size 
demanded in the Boston market? — A. And public opinion as well as 
conservation of the fishery, and the law which would not meet with 
too much public disapproval. 

Q. And you think it easier to get for 9 inches than 10|^ ? — A. I do — 
coupled wdth a short season. 

Q. Unless some measure of that sort is adopted, what is going to be 
the fate of the lobster industry? — A. It will be practically exter- 
minated. 

Q. It is a question of allowing the industry to be destroyed or 
l)assing drastic laws to regulate it — we are up against that proposi- 
tion? — A. Yes. 

Q. We have had some discussion with regard to the shad fishery. 
What is the condition of the shad fishery in the Bay of Fundy? — 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 333 

A. Very much the same as the lobster fishery — not very much the 
same ; decidedly worse. 

Q. Is there danger of the shad reaching the vanishmg point in a 
feAv 3^ears? — A. They have reached such a point now; there is danger 
of their reaching the vanishing point very soon. 

Q. I presume as a fishery officer you have been giving consideration 
to the matter. What would your suggestion be as to a proper step 
to take to protect the shad fishery? — A. I would suggest first that 
you have a close season for at least three j^ears. At the end of three 
years the season could be extended still further, if necessary. It 
would be quite hard. I admit, on some people right on the St. John 
River who would be prevented from taking shad this year, the next 
year, and the following year. The fourth year they might be able to 
take as much as they would now, and the fishery would be in better 
condition. 

Q. Some evidence was given here this afternoon by gentlemen who 
catch shad, who are of opinion that if there was a close season up the 
river in the waters Avhere the shad resorts to deposit its spawn, that 
might answer the purpose? — A. That would answer a certain pur- 
pose. 

Q. Would it be as effective as a total prohibition? — A. No, because 
the ones j^ou take in the harbor and on the way up would never reach 
the spawning grounds. 

Q. What is the close season? — A. Six o'clock Saturday night to 
sunrise Monday morning. The number of shad taken averages about 
40,000 a year. 

Q. Is that decreasing? — A. It decreased last year. Three years 
ago was one of the best years we have had in five or six years. They 
make their first appearance from the 6th to the 10th of June, going 
up the river. 

Q. There used to be a lot of shad caught up at the other end of the 
Bay of Fundy. Are there any caught there now ? — A. No, not to any 
extent ; very few caught there now. 

Q. To what do you attribute the falling off in the number of 
shad? — A. Excessive fishing. 

Q. Anj^ other cause? — A. No; I am not a scientist or a chemist. 
I can not tell whether it is due to pollution of the waters or not. 

Q. Did you ever hear that in the upper part of the bay it was 
caused b}^ sawdust going into the waters? — A. I have heard that. 
Those conditions do not obtain down here. I think most of that 
stuff is camouflage. The real reason is excessive fishing. 

Q. You believe that prohibition is the only Avay to deal with 
that? — A. Prohibition for a period of time. 

Q. Have you yourself engaged in deep-sea fishing? — A. I cer- 
tainh^ have in my younger days. 

Q. You are altogether out of the business now? — A. I have been 
out of it for 10 or 11 years. 

Q. You know of the American vessels coming into our ports under 
the modus vivencli licenses? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you consider that has been of advantage to the American 
vessel owners? — A. It has been an advantage to the American vessel 
owners. 

Q. When they come in do they buy bait in our ports?— A. Oh, yes; 
they buy bait if they take out a license. 



334 AMEEICAN-CAlsrADIAN' FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. They must consider it an advantage or they would not pay 
$1.50 a ton? — A. I would presume so. 

Q. You think that right taken away would be to their disadvan- 
tage? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have heard it stated here to-day that the Canadian vessels 
can not clear from the fishing grounds to Boston or to an American 
port, and that they can not clear from an American port direct to 
the fishing grounds. Do you regard that as a considerable disad- 
vantage to the Canadian vessel that wishes to take a catch into New 
England? — A. It is a certain disadvantage. It has been a complete 
prohibition of such being done and our people have considered it 
quite drastic, and without doubt the fishermen have put up with con- 
siderable loss and inconvenience on account of such a regulation. 

Q. If the people of the United States were willing to throw down 
the bars and allow our vessels to come in and out of their ports as 
their own vessels do, would you consider it would be a fair exchange 
to extend the rights of our ports to all vessels no matter how pro- 
pelled for a nominal amount or for no amount ? — -A. I certainly think 
it would be a fair, equitable, and just arrangement, and the amount 
we should charge should be nominal and better have nothing. 

Q. Your idea would be that that arrangement would be fair to the 
people of both countries? — A. It certainly would be. 

Q. Mutually advantageous ?^A. It would bring the question away 
back resting on the proper basis. If it is to the advantage of a par- 
ticular vessel or concern to sell to either one country or the other 
they would have an opportunity to do so, and it would bring it all 
back resting each case on its own merits without working any hard- 
ship or disadvantage to either side. Furthermore, it would help 
cement the friendly relations between the two countries. 

By Mr. Sweet: 

Q. You heard the talk this morning with regard to the increase in 
the American market for the consumption of fish and a campaign to 
make it larger? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is it your opinion that the use of fish has been increased during 
the war throughout the United States and Canada?-— A. Oh, yes; 
decidedly so. 

Q. Recognizing the fact that fish is a good and. wholesome food, 
do you think that more people are now becoming accustomed to the 
use of fish as a permanent addition to the market? — A. Yes. 

Q. Along side by side with the increased demand for fish there 
will be a natural tendency to increase the supply ? — A. Fish is a good 
article of food. It is simply a question of bringing fish to the interior 
of your country, and once eating fish they would prefer it to a good 
many meats. It is more economical to eat fish at the present time- 
consequently I think the demand for fresh fish will be doubled in 
five years. 

Q. Taking that into consideration, would it not seem to you to 
be an added reason for the fishermen themselves engaged in the 
industry on either side to be rather liberal in their view than to be 
narrow? — A. I surely do, and there is every reason why they should 
be liberal and broad in their view. 

Q. And the change that is proposed on both sides that you have 
said you thought would be equitable would be in the nature of dimin- 
ishing waste energy, would it not? — A. Exactly so. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 335 

Q. It would of itself have a tendency to considerably increase the 
supply of fish with the same amount of effort now made? — A. Yes. 

Q. You would avoid these voyag-es or trips? — A. You would get 
the maximum output with the minimum effort. 

Q. Has your attention been called to the question of fish spawned 
in a particular stream returning afterwards to that stream ? — A. No ; 
I have no information. My district is confined to the counties of St. 
John and Charlotte, and most of the spawning is in the counties 
after you pass St. John. 

Mr. Sweet. I would like to ask Dr. Smith if that is considered 
to be the rule now among scientific men? 

Dr. Smith. As with salmon so with shad. A fish which comes 
into existence in a certain stream and spends a certain part of its 
life there and goes back to the sea is likely to return to the stream 
of its origin; that does not necessarily imply any highly developed 
instinct of nativity on the part of the shad or salmon, but it does 
mean that there are certain natural laws operating on those fish when 
they come back from the sea to spawn, and a shad or salmon is mere 
than likely to go back to the stream in wdiich it was born than any 
other stream. That I believe is true of wild animals and birds. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We believe the salmon return here to the 
different rivers. Take the rivers flowing into the Bay Chaleur, the 
Metapedia, and others — ^the salmon in those rivers are all different 
one from the other. The universal belief is that the salmon always 
returns to the same river in which it was spawned. 

Mr. Sweet. I call attention to it not because of the shad part of 
this hearing having very much to do with the United States section 
of this conference. It seems to me to be rather a local question, but 
I think it is a very proper one to discuss. Secretary Redfield re- 
ferred to what has been done at Chesapeake Bay, and it occurred 
to me in connection with this it might not be harmful to call atten- 
tion to this — that whatever you mieht do in connection with protect- 
ing your shad mclustry you would get the benefit of it yourself 
almost wholly. 

By Dr. Smith : 
Q. We are very much interested in the lobster fisher3^ It is occa- 
sioning us much concern, and we are therefore desirous of having 
all possible information and all kinds of views as to what the situa- 
tion demands. I would therefore like to ask what you had par- 
ticularly in mind in advocating an open season for lobster fishing 
between December and April? — ^A. Of course, as far as the lobster 
fishery is concerned — if we had that only to consider, some other 
four months would do as well. I was taking the occuj)ation of the 
fishermen and the other branches of the fisheries into consideration 
as well. They have to make a living in their occupation — ^liave to 
catch certain fish certain seasons of the year when they are in the 
water. After the 1st of April trawl fishing begins and continues 
until the middle of December, when it practically ceases. The 
sardine weir fishermen in St. John and Charlotte Counties, their 
season closes about the 15th of December. To a greater or less ex- 
tent all the trawl and line fishermen are lobster fishermen. There- 
fore if you made a season which fitted in for the fishermen during 
the otherwise dull time, you get the same output of lobsters — give 



336 AMEBICAX-CANADIAX FiSHEEIES CONFEEENCE, 

all the fishermen a chance to partake in the fishery — they take the 
lobsters when they are a good price, and therefore it is the best 
time of year to do it. 

Q. That might be the case on the coast of New Brunswick or 
Nova Scotia; it would hardly be the case on the coast of Maine? — 
A. As Chief Justice Hazen remarked, you should have a uniform 
length of close season or open season AAhich would afford the same 
protection. 

Q. Is it not conceivable that you uiight have a close season of four 
months during which there Avas no lobster fishing, and 3'et the 
activity of fishing at the end of that jDeriod might be such that all 
the good effects of the close season would be counteracted? — A. If 
ihe water is filled with traps as much fishing can be done in 2 months 
as in 10 months. You take the winter months; you can't fish every 
day. At the same time the men engaged woulcl get a good return 
for their labor. That is another reason why it should be confined 
to the winter. 

Q. The effect of this regulation or law would simply be to reduce 
the catch — the purpose of it would be? — A. As a protective measure 
to prevent you from taking more than your interest — to at least hold 
your principal with every prospect of your principal increasing. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN JACKSON, FISH DEALER, ST. JOHN. 

By Chief Justice Hazex : 
Q. Mr. Jackson, j^ou are interested in the fisheries question? — 
A. If there is Sinj possible way this commission can bring about 
a code of laws which will remedy the difficulties we have had to 
contend with in the past, I think yon will fulfill a mission looked 
for for a long time. As you know. I am a business man in the 
town. I am a distributor of the cured commodity. In my younger 
days I did some fishing, but nothing that would throw light on the 
question. I am particularly interested in this grayfish issue. I 
think it is a commodity that can be put to good use. I think it is 
better than many of the table fish we are after to-day. I am sure 
the efforts put forth by the Americans to utilize this fish are very 
laudable. We spent quite a little bit of our time when last in Ottawa 
to see if something could not be done along these lines. I procured 
several specimens and put them up in fairly good shape, but I never 
knew anything about it until a man in Aberdeen, Scotland, apprised 
me of the fact that it had been advertised there. [Clipping from 
newspaper shown to the commission.] There was a letter which 
came along with that. In prewar days we did considerable business 
with this Aberdeen mei'chant and he brought to my attention the 
fact that they had been using this fish for a number of years. As 
you know, sir, when last in Ottawa it was suggested that $3,000 be 
set aside to experiment with this particular fish. I asked two or 
three of our New Brunswick canners and they told me there was no 
trouble at all in getting 2 or 3 tons of this variety, provided they 
got a suitable bonus. That was not the reason they did not put the 
stuff up. The main reason Ave did not procure a feAv tons of this 
stuff was that Ave could not secure the tin. The next reason Avas 
Ave could not secure labor and had not enough to fill the orders the 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 337 

firm had alread}' secured. But I really think there is a great future 
for our gTayfish or flake. 

Chief Justice Hazex. It is graviish by act of Parliament. 
Mr. Jacksox. This Aberdeen man tells me that this flake has 
been in constant use as long as he or his father can remember, and 
they consider it a delicaC}'. It is a splendid commodity and I think 
it is a shame it goes to waste. I think if our Canadian Government 
would give us a bonus on it we could produce hundreds of tons. 

Chief Justice Hazex. Do you think a bonus is necessary at the 
present high price of food ( There is no bonus in the United States. 
Mr. Jacksox. The United States, as I understand it, have spent 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in exploiting this commodity. 

Secretar}^ Redfield. ^ir. !Maddock was employed for six months at 
A small salarv. and at the end of six months we did not renew the em- 
ploA^nent. IVhile we are speaking of the subject, I think we regard 
the grayfish as one of the most useful fishe,s we have. Dr. Smith 
has gone over to get some grayfish leather that we have at the hotel. 
Glycerine is also obtainecl from the oils of the grayfish, glue is 
made from his tail and head, and what is left will make fertilizer, 
besides what you eat. The only trouble we have had is to get enough 
grayfish in the United States and enough tin. A concern in Balti- 
more bought 1,000 cases thinking they would last all season. They 
were gone in a week. To-day if we had the tin we would be 
hundreds of thousands of cans behind the demand for grayfish 
even. We spent $20,000 in a year in all wa^^s. You have canned 
grayfish, Mr. Smith? 

Capt. Bex.ta:m]x A. S^iith. Yes, sir; we could not get the fish. 
"\Ye started in with the price too low — one-half cent, three-fourths — 
at last we paid a cent a pound as they came out of the water. Speak- 
ing of the skins, we have a pile of dogfish skins and 30 or 40 barrels 
of dogfish eggs. 

Secretary Redfield. You consider it good property ? 
Capt. Bexjamix A. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. He is a useful animal. Pie has been a great 
curse to the water front of both countries, and now he is an asset. 

Mr. Jacksox. We had two canneries in Xew Brunswick putting- 
up this commodity as sea chicken — it sold in the West Indies at a 
fairly good price. The sardine business came in. I think that is 
one of the main reasons why they dropped several of these little 
issues. 

Secretary Redfield. A very interesting phase of the fisheries work in 
the.P'nitecl States and one quite capable of being taken up anywhere 
else is the development of fish as a source of leather supply. With 
the increase in leather prices it is necessary to look for an additional 
supply — it is perfectly hopeless to expect to get the leather from 
cattle!^ There are not enough cattle. There are three concerns I 
think tanning exclusively fish leathers in the L^nited States. Shark 
skins make a variety of 'leather suitable for traveling bags, etc. In 
the same way the porpoise and a number of other fishes, particularly 
the whale, are also providing leather. 

On the Pacific coast 3,000 square feet of leather has been procured 
from an 80-foot whale. His stomach, the lining of his abdomen 
and a portion of his mouth all make admirable leather. The Ocean 

51950—18 22 



338 AMEEICAJSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 

Tanning Co. lias sprung up in Pittsburgh, making its entire product 
from fish. That is certain to be one of the great products from the 
campaign. We think there will be fishes caught for leather Avhich 
otherwise would be neglected. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I want to ask 3^ou, Mr. Jackson, if you think 
it would be an arrangement fair and equitable to both — a fifty-fifty 
arrangement as expressed to us in the United States, if the United 
States Government would remove the restrictions that now exist 
against our fishing vessels using their ports in exchange for our ex- 
tending the privileges of our ports to all vessels, no matter how 
propelled, and of allowing them the right to sell^their fish in Canada, 
we having the right to sell fish in the United States — if you think 
that would be an arrangement fair and mutually to the advantage 
of both countries? 

Mr. Jackson. Surel3^ the sooner you can bring that about the 
better for both countries. I have not the shadow of a doubt about it. 

STATEMENT BY R. E. ARMSTRONG, SECRETARY OF ST. JOHN 
BOARD OF TRADE. 

Mr. Arjnistrong. Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen, it is so long 
since I have had anything to do with the fishing business that there 
is ver}^ little information I could give you which would be of use. 
I took an active interest in the sardine fishing and in the general 
fisheries of Charlotte County when I Avas a resident of that com- 
munity, and I had the honor of occupying a position on the Sardine 
Fishery Commission of 1903, when the subject of the bearing of the 
sardine fisherj^ upon the larger herring fishery was considered, and 
as I recall the work that we did at that period and the evidence ad- 
duced, it was our impression that the sardine fisheries were not 
exercising the detrimental effect upon the larger herring alleged by 
some of the champions of the larger herring. Mr. Found was with 
us as a member of the commission and he entertains a lively recol- 
lection of all that happened. I had the pleasure of participating in 
the eating of grey fish on that commission. Samples of the grey 
fish were sul^mitted to us and we found them most excellent eating. 
Had I known that I was likely to be called upon I might have pulled 
my thoughts together a little better. I came here to be enlightened 
rather than to enlighten — therefore I have very little information. 

Chief Justice Hazen. We will meet here again to-morrow at 10.30 
o'clock. Mr. Ferguson, chairman of the Board of Steamship In- 
spection at Ottawa, will give, evidence regarding the inpsection 
of ship's machinery, as a statement has been made before us at 
Washington to the effect that there was a difference in the inspection 
laws of "the two countries. Mr. Short, of the Maritime Fish Cor- 
poration, will also be here, and some other gentlemen. If anyone 
wishes to add anything to what they have said to us to-day we will 
be only too glad to hear them. It is our desire to get the fullest in- 
formation possible. We will be very glad if gentlemen who are here 
or who are not here, if anything of value occurs to them, if they 
will communicate it to us later on. 

Mr. Gardner. We all are aware of the fact that a greater pro- 
duction of fish is required. Might I ask Mr. Brittain or Mr, Smith 



AMERICAI^-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 339 

to answer these questions : Whether this will be produced by steam 
trawling vessels — we have not mentioned or taken into consideration 
probably what is known as the shore fisherman on the east of Nova 
Scotia or the Magdalen Islands where they catch herring — or will 
the greater fleet of the Americans or Canadians be of the sailing 
vessels which will use the herring for bait. The point is that if our 
23orts are open for the American vessels to come in, and they are 
sailing vessels, it will be of great advantage to the shore fishermen 
who will sell bait. If they are steam trawlers which come in it will 
be an advantage to the merchant Avho may be able to supply them, 
or the machinist who may have to repair the engines. 

Chief Justice Hazen. Any arrangement made would apply to 
all vessels, whether steam or sailing vessels, and w^ould apply to 
the steam trawlers the same as to any other vessels. I understand 
you ask for an opinion from Mr. Brittain or Mr. Smith as to whether 
they think the trawler will ultimately take the place of the schooner. 

Mr. Bkittain. The mslj I figure it out at the present time we have 
n fleet of schooners at Lunenburg that are not what we call fishing 
enough. They are working from the middle of March until Sep- 
tember — then I understand some go into coasting and others pull in 
for the winter. I would be willing to make a deal with Mr. Smith's 
firm to put those vessels at fresh fishing and keep them at it, and 
take those 102 vessels and put them into the fresh-fish business and 
give us further production. I have always wondered why these 
Lunenburg vessels have not gone into fresh fishing in the winter 
time. 

Mr. Gardner. We find it too strenuous upon our vessels to operate 
in the winter time. The point of the matter w^as whether the vessel 
w^as going to be of a sailing type or steam trawler wdiich would not 
have to buy bait. There are hundreds of men along the Nova Scotia 
coast who catch herring and sell it to the Lunenburg fleet and others, 
and do a very profitabFe business. I was wondering if in your opin- 
ion the increased fleet would be composed of steam trawlers, which 
would not be of advantage to the herring fishermen, or if it would 
be composed of sailing vessels. 

Mr. Brittain. There is no doubt that the number of steam vessels 
will be largely increased. At the same time the sailing equipment 
which is now at Lunenburg and other places — there is no reason 
why it should not be kept in operation for 12 months. It is harder 
on your vessels, you say. We have our vessels out fresh fishing all the 
season. We change the sails to suit the weather. We will get our 
own skippers and crews if you will charter the vessels. 

(Conference adjourned to 10.30 Wednesday.) 



February 6, 1918. 

The conference resumed at 10.30 a. m. 

Chief Justice Hazen. I am very glad to see that we have with us 
the president of the Gloucester Board of Trade, Mr. Davis, whom we 
had the pleasure of meeting in Gloucester and who paid us a great 
deal of courtesy when we were in that city. The elements prevented 
Mr. Davis getting here yesterday. I might say to Mr. Davis that if 
there is anvthing he would like to ask any of the gentlemen who come 



840 ' AMERrCAX-CANADJAX FTSHEETES COISTFEEENCE. 

before us this mornino- we will be very glad if he will avail himself 
of the opportunity. 

STATEMENT BY MR. H. E. SHORT, MARITIME FISH CORPORA- 
TION, DIGBY, N. S., MANAGER. 

By Chief Justice Hazen : 

Q. You are manager of the Maritime Fish Corporation of Digby, 
are you not ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is Digby the head otiice? — A. The head oilice is in Montreal. 

Q. Where are your branches? — A. At Canso and Digby. 

Q. What sort of business do you carry on, Mr. Short? — A. All 
branches practically of the fish business — fresh, smoked, salted fish 
for our Canadian trade and export. 

Q. You own a fleet of boats yourself? — A. Yes, sir; Ave own ves- 
sels and operate them ourselves, and also a steam vessel. 

Q. How many vessels? — A. Just at the present two. 

Q. Are those 100-ton schooners? — A. Yes; about 100-ton schooners. 

Q. And in addition to that you own a steam trawler? — A, Yes; 
the Raindor. 

Q. How long have you had these schooners? — A. Seven years. 

Q. Were they new at the time you got them? — A. We had them 
built. 

Q. Whereabouts ?— A. At Shelburne. 

Q. Do you knoAV what price is paid to-day in Nova Scotia for 100- 
ton schooners with the spars ?^ — A. Of course prices are much higher 
in shipping than ever before. Schooners such as these of ours would 
cost to-day in the neighborhood of $18,000 to $^0,000. I think prob- 
ably our best schooner to-day would cost us $20,000 — a 100-ton 
schooner. 

Q. Does that include the hull and the spars? — A. That would in- 
clude the hull, spars, and rigging, but not her outfitting — dories and 
fishing gear — but including her sails. 

Q. We had it stated to us yesterday that there was a schooner under 
construction now in Nova Scotia — under contract — at a price of 
$22,000 that was for the hull and spars^ — that the contract was 
let now. — A. I would not be surprised at that at all. 

Q. We also have the statement made by Mr. Smith that the ves- 
sels built in Gloucester at the present time cost somewhat less than 
that. Do you know what is the life of one of those Nova Scotia 
schooners? — A. After 10 years they are beginning to show a great 
deal of weakness. They do not compare in so far as the life is con- 
cerned with an American schooner. Our material is not as good qual- 
ity. There is a great deal of oak in the construction of an American 
vessel, 

Q. It would be true to say, would it not, that the American 
schooner would be a cheaper schooner in the long run, if it cost the 
same amount as a Canadian schooner? — A. Yes; very much so under 
present conditions. The life of an American schooner at 20 years 
of age is equally as good as our schooners perhaps at 10. 

Q. At the present time, according to the evidence submitted to us 
yesterday, the Canadian schooner costs (juite as much as the Ameri- 
can schooner? — A. Quite as much. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 341 

Q. Of your own knowledge do you kno^v that to be the case ? — A. 1 
•can cite you a case of a schooner we now have under charter, built 
in Lunenburg County two years ago. This schooner is 100 tons. 
When we were negotiating for a charter for her last autumn a New^- 
foundland party was negotiating for the purchase of this vessel. 
They offered the owner $18,000 for this schooner of 100 tons, 2 years 
old this spring. He had made inquiries and found he could not get 
a schooner readj" for spring fishing and the cost would be about 
$22,000, so he concluded that he had better charter the vessel to us 
rattier than sell her for $18,000. That I know for an actual fact. 
We chartered the vessel and are operating her now. 

Q. W^hat would have to be paicl in the United States for a fishing 
schooner of 100 tons, built in the waj^ in which they are built in the 
United States? — A. I am not familiar w-ith that. I presume they 
could build a schooner for around from twenty to twenty-five thou- 
sand dollars at least, and it would be a very much better vessel. I 
do not know what the figures would be. I am interested in a small 
three-masted vessel we are building now for coasting — a vessel of 
about 350 tons. ^Ve assume that she is going to cost us from forty 
to forty-five thousand dollars. 

Q. In your opinion the American fisherman in competition with 
the Canadian fisherman would not be handicapped in consequence 
of the extra price he avouIcI have to pay for a vessel in the United 
States? — A. I can not see how he would, sir, at all. 

Q. Are you familiar with the system of paying the officers and 
men on board the sailing vessels ? — Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you tell us what wages they receive? — A. Our sailing 
A'essels are not under wages at all. They are on shares. The same 
system, I think, prevails in the United States. I do not think their 
crews are hired by the month — practically all fish on shares. The 
usual custom wath us is the vessel gets one-fifth of the stock and the 
fish, and out of the vessel's share of the fish we pay the captain his 
commission. The commission is 5 per cent usuall3^ Then the cap- 
tain gets a regular sliare with the crew" in addition to his 5 per cent. 
We have a trip in now of one of our schooners — just landing now — 
a trip of about $4,000. The captain will get $200 on that trip. In 
addition to that he will have his share — an average share with the 
crew. 

Q. How long w^ould that trip take ? — A. The vessel has been away 
since the 6th of January. These fish were all caught in two days last 
week. That is one of the ups and downs of the fishing business. 

Q. What do the crew get out of that — what would that amount to 
in dollars and cents in an average month? — A. Probably the crew 
on a trip like this will average $100 or $110 to a man. 

Q. And how many months in the year do you fish? — A. We fish 
the 12 months 

Q. Can 3^ou tell us how^ the earnings of the men on these fishing 
schooners sailing out of Canadian ports compare with the earnings 
of the seamen and captain on board fishing schooners sailing out, say 
from Gloucester? — A. In many cases it depends a great deal upon 
the skipper — whether he is a practical man or not. With a good 
skipper the crews will make just as good money as out of Gloucester. 



342 AMEEICAN-CAlirADIAlSr FISHFEIES CONFEEENCE. 

Q. It depends upon the skipper I suppose — his knowledge of where 
to go and get fish and all that? — A. Yes; his knowledge of the 
business, and his push and ambition. The same thing applies with 
a fishing skipper as with a coasting skipper, taking advantage of 
the weather and all that. 

Q. But you feel safe in saying that under similar conditions as 
to skippers the crew on board a vessel sailing out of Digby or Canso 
will make just as good pay as the crews on board a Aessel sailing from 
Gloucester or any New England poi-t? — \. Just as good. We have 
two skippers Avith us who have sailed out of both places. The 
skipper on the vessel I speak of has sailed out of Boston for several 
years. He tells me he makes just as good money at home as he ever 
did in the United States. There is no reason why they should not; 
if our vessels work as hard as theirs they make as much money. 

Q. You think they work harder than you? — A. Sure, I do. 

Q. Calling attention to your trawler. Will you give us a state- 
ment of how the captain and men are paid on the trawler? — A. Those 
men are paid on a commission basis. 

Q. Are they paid entirely on a connnission basis? — A. Practically 
so — the crews, of course, get a small wage. 

Q. We are told in the United States that the officers on board the 
trawlers in Canada were better paid than officers on board trawlers 
in the United States, but that in the United States the men received 
to commence with $40 a month, and then they receive divided money 
among them of $7 a thousand on the catch ; and that in Canada they 
started with $30 a month and received $7 divided among them on 
the catch; so that practically the men on the Canadian trawlers 
received $10 a month less than the men on the American trawlers, 
presuming the catch of fish was the same. Do you know whether 
that is a correct statement of fact or not, as applies to Canadian 
trawlers? — A. No ; I don't. I haven't anything to do with the manag- 
ing of our travider at Canso. It is entirely handled from our branch 
there, but I do know that the men are perfectly satisfied, and I have 
always noted that the captains of the trawlers fishing out of Nova 
Scotia make better money than out of the United States. 

Q. That was the statement made to us — that the captains on our 
trawlers got more money but that the men did not get quite as much — 
started with $10 a month less. In each case there Avas a bonus of $7 
a thousand pounds of catch of fish di^dded among the men? — A. 
I have understood that. 

Q. Do you pay a bonus ?^ — A. Oh, yes, Ave pay a commission. On 
the traAvler the creAv get so much per thousand. 

Q. HoAv much per thousand? — A. I could not tell 3^ou. 

Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you knoAv how much per thousand? — 
A. Our crews on the Canadian traAvlers are worked on a different 
lay. They get their remuneration on the net stock. On the American 
coast they get it on the gross stock. Our men earn more money 
than the men on the American steam traAvlers — whether they earn 
it out of the commissions or the money — it is largely through the 
larger quantities of fish the}' catch in our bottoms in comparison 
Avith the American. 

Q. Have you any opportunty of comparing the sums of money 
received by American trawlers Avith that received b}^ the men on 



AMEEICAX-GAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 343 

yor.r trawlers? — A. Xo, sir. We had an American travrler working 
for us last summer. An order in council allowing American trawlers 
to land in Xova Scotia was passed. This was on account of the 
shortage of supplies in the British market. Their captain on the 
boat workinrv for us was not a very highly paid oiiicial at all. I 
think he had $50 a month and a bonus — it amounted to about $200 
a month. If our captains can not make nearly double that they 
are not satisfied. 

Q. Do you know v,hat supplies are furnisiied to the schooners 
and to the trawler? — A. Yes, sir; the very best we can purchase. 
Our lishennen are fastidious in theii' taste — tlie}' want the very best 
of everj^thing. They Avon't buy a fore quarter of beef — they must 
have the hind quarter. They have got to ha^c a cook who can put 
up the very best meal possible to serve. They won't have an 
ordinary man these days. 

Q. Mr. Shoi't, Avhere do you buy your supplies — do you buy them 
in Canada? — A. Practically so — except our fishing gear. 

Q. Do you buy beef in the United States? — A. Beef and pork are 
bought there. 

Q. Beef and pork I suppose are sta^^le articles on board? — A. Not 
so m.uch the beef as pork, because they use fresh beef. 

Q. And your men get the very best ? — A. The very best that the 
markets afford of everything. 

Q. Can you tell us how the prices that are paid for these articles 
would compare with prices paid for similar articles in the United 
States? — A. I do not think there is very much difference^ — they 
ma}' perhaps pay a. little more in the X'^nitecl States for fresh beef — 
their groceries are certainh- cheaper than with us — their fishing 
gear ought to be cheaper because Ave have to import it ail from 
the United States. 

Q. Does that include you.r nets and hooks? — A. We do not use 
nets, but the nets are all made in the United States. That includes 
the lines. The hooks are made in Scotland, but they are the same 
hooks that the American fishermen use. 

Q. With regard to your dories on your fif'ilng schooners — Avhere 
do you get them? — A. In Shelburne. 

Q. Y\"here are the dories for the American iishermen made? — A, 
A great man}' are made in Shelburne — a [-rent many of them 1 
presunie are made in the United States. 

Q. Having regard to the first cost of your ship, to the wages that 
are paid, to the price paid for supplies and the nature of the supplies, 
and to the equipment, do you think that the American fishing- 
schooner owner is at any disadvantage in consequence of a larger 
price which he has to pay in doing business in competition with the 
Canadian fishermen? — A. I do not think so at all. The day was 
perhaps when he was, but not in these times — not within the last 10 
years. We have been building the very best vessels the country could 
produce, designed by American designers and fitted up in the very 
best manner possible, during the last 10 years. 

Q. It would be true that — taking the year 1913— just previous to 
the outbreak of war — it would l^e true in that year, would it, that the 
Canadians were paying practically as much for their vessels, their 
supplies, and wages as were being paid in the ports of the United 
States? — A. Yes, sir. 



344 AMERICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIE.S CONFERENCE. 

Q. There would not. in your opinion, bo any clanger of the Cana- 
dian lisheriuen. if there was an arran<»enient such as we have been 
talkino- about — no great i)robability that the Canadian fishermen 
would capture the markets because they wouhl be able to produce 
fish so much cheaper than the American fishermen? — xV. I can not 
see it at all. T do not s;ee why the Americans can not catch fish just 
as cheap as we can — in fact, they do. 

Q. Where do you sell youi- catch of fisli — in what markets at jii'es- 
ent? — A. The bulk of our fiesli fish goes to our home markets — we 
ship no fresh fish whatevei' to the Ignited States, and our salt fish 
practically goes to kSouth Amci'ica-lhe West Indies and South 
America — and the last few years we ha\e been shipping ;i good dctd 
to Europe. 

Q. That is voui- salt lisli nou ha\c b;'en shippina' to Europe? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. Are you shipping frozen fish to (ireal r>ritain now? — A. Some, 
yes. 

Q. In your oi)ini()n is that a trtule wliic'.i is likely to continue after 
the war? — A. I think so — I feel quite confident that it will. I be- 
lieve that our fish have a Aery good re])utation over there, proving 
that frozen fish can be exported to England and arrive in good con- 
dition, and I see no reason why we should not continue that market 
after the war is o^er. 

Q. Yon think, iherefore. that you are overcoming the prejudic? 
that I am tohl existed in England against frozen fish? — A. I believe 
^ve are to a large extent. 

Q. That trade, you think, will continue aftei' the wai"!' — A. Yes. 

Q. Tfdving the Ctuiadian nuirket — to \Ahat parts of Canada do 
you seu.d your fresh fish? — A. Our fresh fish, of course, goes mostly 
to Quebec and Ontario. l)ut our smoked fish goes all o\'er Canada — 
to the coast. 

Q. How far \\est do you s{>nd fresh fish ? — -V. We \v,\.yo sent fresh 
fish to Winnipeg — some to Winnipeg — b'.it as a rule the bulk of our 
fresh fish goes to Montreal and Toronto. 

0. You make regular shipmerits to those markets? — A. ^'es. sir. 

Q. Have you found the demand from those mai-kets increasing of 
late years? — A. Very largely increased — especially since the war and 
^'specially in the last year, since the CoNermnent started the adver- 
tising i)ropaganda and inducing the people to eat more fish — the de- 
mand has increased \ery rapidly. 

Q. Are you able at the present time to in-oduce all the fish that 
the market demands? — -A. We would if weather conditions would 
])ermit, but we have not by any mannei' of means this winter — we 
liave not produced anything like what the market demands. 

Q. Do you find it an advantage to use a trawler — that is^ so far 
as obtaining a regular supply of fish is concerned ?—x\. Yes, sir. 
There is not any qnestion that is the coming method of catching fish. 

Q. Because you catch the fish with more certainty and have them 
at your ports "more regularly? — A. You can depend on the arrival 
of the vessels more accurately. 

Q. If you are able to catch more fish than you are doing now, 
will there be any difficulty in finding a market in Canada? — A. No, 
T don't think so'. I think the market is here for us for a vei-y much 



AMERICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEl^'CE, 345 

larg-er amount than is being used now. AVe certainly would have 
no difficulty in finding a market in South America and the AYest 
Indies — that market will take unlimited qu.antities. 

Q. How about the fresh-fish market in the United States? — A. I 
have never considered that at all because we have done so little busi- 
ness with the United States in fresh fish — I have never given it an}' 
consideration. 

Q. "What is the reason you have not taken advantage of the free 
ndmission of fish into the American markets? — A. As a rule the 
prices would not allow us to. We have bought fish in the United 
States on several occasions. Years age I bought 4 carloads in 
Boston and brought them down to Nova Scotia and paid the duty. 

Q. Is the price of fish in the Canadian market higher than in the 
United States? — A. Yery often. 

Q. Yery often this is a much better market than the United 
States? — A. Yery often. In the particular case that I have referred 
to this is perhaps nine years ago. I bought four carloads of fish on 
T Wharf, in Boston — fresh haddock — at $1.25 a hundred pounds. 
The duty on them vras a cent a pound. We got a special freight rate 
of IT cents. We had a schooner landing at the same time, and the 
lish fi'om that cost us $2.75 as compared with $1.25, the price paid in 
Boston. That was nine 3'^ears ago. Conditions are different now. 

Q. As far your business is concerned, the admission of fish free 
into the United States market has not been any great benefit? — A. 
No, sir. We of course have sold some salt fish in the United States, 
but we never have sold fresh fish. 

Q. Do ,you do a regular business selling salt fish in the United 
States? — A. Not a regular business — we have sold none there this 
year. 

Q. When you sell them, how do you send them there? — A. We 
very often send them in bulk by schooner, or by Y'armouth day 
steamer. 

Q. What would the salt fish be — finnan haddie? — A. Salt cod — 
2)ickled cod. 

Q. How does it happen you have sold none there this year? — 
A. We get a better market for it elsewhere. 

Q. Whereabouts? — A. In England. 

Q. Are you of opinion that the Canadian market for fish will go 
on developing and increasing? — A. I certainly think so. We have 
certainly got to substitute fish for some other foods if we are going to 
exist at all. 

Q. Y^ou mean that we can not hope for a large supply of meat? — ■ 
A. We must substitute fish, and our people are just beginning to 
realize that fish is a good article of diet, and in my opinion it is going 
to become a staple article of food just as much as meat is to-day. 

Q. Has your attention been called to the conditions under which 
Canadian fishing vessels can take their goods into the markets of 
the United States? — A. As I understand it, our Canadian vessels 
can not take their catches into American markets now and land them 
and clear for the grounds. They must be treated as coasters. 

Q. They have to bring their catch into a Canadian port and either 
register as a merchant vessel or transfer them — and when in an 
American port they can not clear for the fishing grounds. If our 



846 AMEEIC AX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

people wanted to sell fish in the American market, would those condi- 
tions be an impediment to their doino- so? — A. To a certain ex- 
tent. 

Q. You know of the modus vivendi licenses? — A. Yes. 

Q. In your opinion is the privilege granted to the American fisher- 
men under those licenses to come into our ports of much advantage 
to them? — A. Undoubtedly, sir, it is. The very fact of their taking 
those licenses out year after year points to the fact that the}^ must 
be a benefit to them. 

Q. It has been suggested that in order to get clear of the more or 
less irritation that always exists in regard to the fishermen, and 
having regard to the times in which we live, and the fact that we 
are fighting together as allies in the present war — that our sons are 
shedding their blood in the same cause ; that it is most desirable that 
some settlement should be arrived at that will prevent this irritation 
in the future, and will give greater stability and permanency to the 
rights of American fishermen in our ports than the annual privilege 
given in the modus vivendi licenses, and it has been suggested that 
any such arrangement ought to be based on the principle of mutual 
advantage, and having that principle in mind it would be a fair 
settlement of the question if we ]Dermitted the American fishermen to 
come into our ports as under the modu.s vivendi licenses, without 
charging them anything beyond the merest nominal amount for the 
privilege, and that in exchange they should penuit our fishing ves- 
sels taking fish into the Ignited States to go directly from the fishing- 
grounds to the Ignited States markets and to clear directly from those 
ports again for the fishing grounds, and in addition that they should 
have legislation enacted that would prevent the American fishermen 
coming over with well smacks and getting lobsters outside of terri- 
torial waters at a time when there is a close season within the 3-mile 
limit. What woidd your view be as to an arrangement of that sort. 
Do you think that Avoukl be a fair arrangement of advantage to 
both? — A. Under ])re£ent conditions I think we should try and settle 
this question which has been outstanding for many years. Person- 
ally, I have been opposed to any change in the modus vivendi 
licenses up to the j^resent time, but conditions noAV are entirely dif- 
ferent, and I think that we should both try and get togethei- and 
settle these disputes that have been oustanding for so many years — it 
would be beneficial I think to both countries. 

Q. You place it on that broad ground rather than on the ground 
that such a settlement Avould be of any special advantage to our 
Canadian fishermen? — A. Not any more than it vcould be to the 
American fishermen. Off our Nova Scotia cocsts we claim we have 
the best fisheries in the world ; a great many of the American A'essels 
operate off our coasts and can not get along without using our ports.. 
We can get along Avithout using their markets. We have demon- 
strated the fact in the last 8 or 10 years. Our fisheries have kept 
increasing all the time, notwithstanding the fact that we were shut 
out from the American markets: we have demonstrated the fact that 
we can get along without them. Now that Ave are allies, I think that 
Ave should settle all these outstanding matters and get together on a 
fifty-fifty basis. I think that is the most equitable Avay to settle at 
the present time — to forget our past difficulties. 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX PISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 347 

Q You -tated that up to the present time or until the present con- 
dition of aUairs existed von had been opposed to any interference 
with the modus vivendi licenses. Do I understand you were opposed 
to extending that to vessels propelled by steam ?— A. I was opposed 

to that. 1 ^ 7 V TV- 

Q What was the reason for vour benig opposed to that ( — A. \\ e 
eot nothing in return for granting it to them— our vessels received 
no consideration in their ports whatever. 

Q Ind YOU felt that before we made further extensions or 
s-rarited further conditions that they should be prepared to make some 
modification in their navigation and coasting laws?— A. That is the 
point exactlv. . 

Q. Mutual give and take ?— A. If we ga ve them a certain advan- 
tage, we should receive certain advantages in return. 
Bv Secretary Eedfield : 
Q You «aid that they worked harder on the American vessels— 
as I remember vou said '• Sure they do "—tell us more about that. 
iiist what YOU mean bY that?— A. I don't know that there is much 
explanation. A good maiiY of these men I refer to are our fishermen 
from our own countrv too. ' Thev go and ship out of Gloucester and 
13erhaps the skipper has a little more hustle than our men haY&— as 
I said it is all up to the skipper. Very often a man will work harder 
awav from home. 

Q Do I understand you to mean something of this character. 
Let us suppose five vessels just alike sailing out of Gloucester, for 
an example— the same equipment and same crews— that those five 
vessels, according to the ability and energy and experience of tne tive 
skippers, mav show different results : is that right ?— A. bure. 
Q. That is the practice, is it not ? — A. Yes. 

Q Then results which the vessels secure are not dependent upon 
the cost of the vessel at all, are they ?— A. Oh no. not at all. A very 
inferior vessel often gets a very big catch. 
Q. And the reverse is true ? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. Then those results are not dependent upon the earnings ot the 
crew or the ojficers, are thev? — A. How is that? 

O The results that the vessel sets are not dependent upon the 
eaimino-s of the crew or the officers?— A. The result, the vessel is 
depe-ncfent for her share upon the result of the catch. 

Q. I want to set at what is the real factor in the production ot the 
fish. I gather it is not the cost of the vessel, because a vessel that is 
cheaper may get larger production, or the reverse may be true— then 
the element in production is not the earnings of the officers aiid the 
crew-, but those earnings come out of the production? — A. That is 

right. , .^, 

Q. Therefore the business is one in which skill, experience, capac- 
ity energv are the leading features: is that right?— A. To a very 
laro-e extent. The same tiling would apply in any other business. 
A nian has got to put energv into it to make a success of it. 

Q Is it or is it not true that he has got to do it in a little different 
wav? Isn't it the fact that seamanship, knowledge of the fishing 
grounds, of the habits of the fish, the ability to understand ^nd to 
lead men— is it not so that these are the controlling factors m the fish 
industry? — A. Yes, sir. 



348 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. Then again, Mr. Short, is there anything else in the indnstry as 
important as those factors'^ — A. Is tliere anything as important as 
I hose factors; yes, the marketing of those fish. 

Q,. I am thinking for the moment of prodnction. What I want to 
get at is whethei- it is or is not true that this husiness as it is now con- 
ducted is practically a business in which the two countries have a 
substantial, equal, and mutual interest — whether vessel A officered by 
Captain B has not as good a chance at the game as vessel C oHicercd 
by Captain D — without regard to the port they go from or the flag 
they fly, because, after all, the production depends in the major part 
on brains and skill and experience and character ? — A. Yes. 

Q. You can see the bearing of this at once. If those are the con- 
trolling factors in the bnsiness, then matters like the cost of a vessel 
and equipment become immaterial factors relatively. Is it the fact 
that there are any other factors in the business which are as im- 
portant as the factors of experience, seamanship, energy, character, 
and so on? — A. It seems to me that if we have all of those qualities 
there is no question about getting the catch — if we ha\e weather 
conditions. You have got to have the grounds, of course, t,o go to to 
catch those fish. 

Q. You have got to know where they are? — A. If you have (he ex- 
perience and ability you ai"e going to find them. 

Q. Suppose Captain A Avho has the characteristics for a successful 
fisherman, changes his vessel and goes o\ev from a vessel which cost 
$15,000 to one Avhich cost $25,000, and suppose Capt. B goes back 
from a vessel costing $25,000 to one costing $15,000 then the more 
expensive vessel with the abler skipper would be likely, would it 
not, to earn in pro])ortion more than the cheaper vessel with the 
poorer skipper? — A. Certainly he should. 

Q. In other words the elements of character, ability, brains, en- 
ergy, knowledge of the fishing grounds, ability to lead men — those ai'e 
the controlling factors in the business? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you agree, Mr. Brittain?— A. Abso- 
lutely sir. 

Q." (To Mr. Wilson.) What do you think?— A. I think that is 
perfectly correct. — the only other factor I could think of would be 
the proximity. 

Q. (To Mr. Gardner.) Do you agree, Mr. (xnrdner? — ^A. I do, 
indeed. We have three o]- four very skilled men in our fleet and it 
is no matter what vessel they take they can alwa3'S get a very suc- 
cessful catch — it is in the ability of the men. 

Chief Justice Hazen. The ])ersonal element enters very largely 
into its success. 

By Secretary Redp^iei.d : 

Q. And the personal element is the predominating element. Isn't 
it so much so that as a matter of fact in your business there are cer- 
tain men you would like to get and certain men you do not want? — ■ 
A. (By Mr. Short) : Sure as you're born — there are certain men you 
would like to get clear of. 

Q. So that the personal factor is after all the controlling factor? — 
A. That is right. 

Q. Isn't that true to this extent — that if you had the best fleet in 
the world built at the lowest cost and could not get the men to run 



AMEEICAX-CAiSrADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 349 

it right it would be a failure? — A. That is just it exactly. I used to 
be interested personally in a few fishing vessels before I went in with 
the Maritime Fish Corporation, and I always made it a point never 
to put a dollar in a fishing vessel unless the skipper owned a share 
in it. 

Q. (To Capt. Benjamin A. Smith). I want to ask whether you 
agree with that proposition? — A. I do so. It all depends on the 
captain and the crew — the organization. 

By ]Mr. Sweet : 

Q. You said something Mr. Short about the increase of the tend- 
ency on the part of the people in this country to eat fish — have you 
anj^ doubt in your own mind as to the permanency of the taste for 
fish that the people are acquiring during this war period? — A. No, 
sir — I believe it is purely a matter of education. Once they begin I 
believe they will continue right through — they will prefer it. 

Q. So that you feel in the future there is to be a very large and 
comparatively steady market, do you, for fish in this country? — A. 
There is sure to be sir — I have every confidence there will be. 

Q. You have also stated that you were somewhat opposed to grant- 
ing privileges to United States vessels unless certain concessions were 
made on the part of the United States. Of course you have already 
expressed your opinion that it would be wise to make the arrange- 
ment that is being discussed here and that may result from this con- 
ference. You base that, if I understand correctly, upon the idea that 
it would be in the first place equitable and just as between the two. 
Nations? — A. Yes. 

Q. In other words that it would be, as you express it, on the fifty- 
fifty basis — that eliminates the objections that jrou have had before 
on the ground that you did not wish to make any concessions with- 
out receiving something in return ? — A. That is right. 

Q. Assuming that the result of this conference should be what we 
hope — by making mutual concessions — would that result in an in- 
crease in the supply of fish for the benefit of both countries and meet 
the requirements of the future better than if this arrangement were 
not made ? — A. It will have some effect no doubt. I question ver}' 
much whether many of our vessels will go to the United States with 
their catch, because as I say our market is usually as good as theirs 
and it would not pay us to go over there. There might be perhaps a 
few cargoes of salt fish, and perhaps in the Lunenburg fleet — I would 
suppose that in the fall of the year after their last catch they might 
take advantage of it and go over there to land them, but so far as 
our vessels are concerned and our port in Nova Scotia, I do not thinly 
that very manj^ of our vessels would take advantage of running into 
the United States because prices have been practically as good with 
us as over there and we are very much nearer home. 

Q. Suppose a United States vessel operated by auxiliary power or 
steam meeting with some untoward conditions as regards weather, 
or for some reason or other wished to make a Canadian port and 
dispose of a partial catch, in order to return immediately to the 
fishing grounds, or get supplies, or perhaps ship some additional men 
in its crew, or for any purpose of that kind, where it would be 
obliged to go back to an American port in order to do these things — 



350 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 

if it could come into a Canadian port and then return immediately 
to the grounds it would save considerable time? — A. Yes. 

Q. That time could be useful? — A. You might lose a full trip of 
fishing. 

Q. Would not that make considerable difference in the fish sup- 
ply — if you multiply that by quite a good many, as might be the 
case, it would make some difference, would it not? — A. Yes; but we 
have not been producing fish enough for the consumption — the de- 
mand there has been. There is no trouble to dispose of the fish at all. 

Q. What I am getting at is that American fishermen could be 
engaged more of the time in fishing under the plan that we propose 
than they can to-day? — A. Yes. 

Q. And spend less time in going back and forth to American 
ports; in other words, less waste of time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And if Canadian fishermen see fit to avail themselves of the 
privilege granted under this pro})osed arrangement of clearing di- 
rectly from American ports to the fishing grounds and then return- 
ing to American ports with their catch, they would be avoiding the 
waste of time of going around the two sides of the triangle? — A. 
They don't go at all — they are prohibited. 

Q. It would mean the catching of more fish by Americans and 
Canadians? — A. I certainly think it woidd. Any obstacles j^ou can 
take away are bound to have a tendency to greater production. 

Q. In view of the expanding market do you regard that as a very 
considerable advantage and a good reason for making the proposed 
arrangement? — A. I do; yes, sir. And then again I think that we 
should under the present conditions do away with all these differ- 
ences between the two countries. I think more of it from that stand- 
point than from a business standpoint, because I do not see where 
this thing is going to be a great advantage to us. There are very 
few fresh fish go over. Some localities, such as Lakeport and Liver- 
pool and Yarmouth, a few months in the wintertime a few hundred 
thousand pounds of fresh fish go over, but from other sections of 
Nova Scotia practically none. It is of no advantage to us in that 
respect. It would be a little advantage in the salt-fish game, but 
buyers from the United States come over to our country at the present 
time and buy up all the salt cod and other salt fish they can get, so 
that from our standpoint I do not see that it is going to be of any 
great advantage to us, but as I said before I think this is a time when 
we should get together and forget little differences and let us make 
some arrangement that will be agreeable to both countries. We are 
not afraid of competing with the United States in any part of the 
world. 

Q. Whereas our attitude has been somewhat that of trying to pre- 
vent the other getting the advantage? — A. There has been a little 
feeling. 

Q. That feeling has entirely gone. We are not only allies in the 
war. but we are just as much friends and as closely allied as Maine 
and Massachusetts, for that matter, and there is no more reason why 
there should be any friction or any divergence or clashing of interest 
betAveen Canada and the United States than between Maine and 
Massachusetts — can you see any? — A. None whatever. We have 



AMEEICAK-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 351 

the kindliest feelings in every way, shape, and manner for the 
people across the border. 

Q. And the adoption of the proposed plan would be in the direc- 
tion of benefiting to some extent both countries? — A. Xo doubt of it. 

Q. Mr. Davis, who is here, expressed the opinion at Gloucester 
that this arrangement would be a good one, in his judgment, during 
the war. I want to ask if it is your opinion that it should be limited 
to that period? — A. It certainly should be made permanent, if we are 
going to make any arrangement whatever. AVe would have to con- 
sider these things again if it is not made permanent. 

By Mr. Fred L. Davis, of Gloucester : 

Q. Tell me the name of the schooner that you have? — A. Dorothy 
M. Smart. 

Q. How many dories has she? — A. Ten. 

Q. Those dories, I suppose, were purchased in Nova Scotia for 
about $15? — A. I would say to-day, $22. 

Q. They have incerased in value in a year? — A. The time was 
when we could buy them for $13 at Shelburne and freight them to 
Digby. 

Q. How much would it cost to outfit this vessel, as far as eatables 
are concerned, on this trip? — A. You w^ould have pretty good idea 
about that — the vessel has been gone since the 6th of January. She 
has had to provision up twice in that time. Probablv her grub bill 
would be $600 or $700. 

Q. Have you any idea how much what the crew eat would cost? — 
A. At least $500. Very often in the last end of it they are not so 
enthusiastic over their food as when they first start out — in other 
words, they cut their garments according to the cloth. 

Q. You claim this vessel went on the 6th ? — A. Yes. 

Q. You pay the captain 5 per cent? — A. Of the gross stock — for 
instance, if her gross stock is $4,000, the captain gets $200. 

Chief Justice Hazen : 

Q. By the stock you mean the fish? — A. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Davis: 

Q. Didn't you know that at Gloucester they do not pay as much ? — 
A. I know tliat your vessels have got a great deal better lay so far as 
the vessel owners are concerned. Your vessels take a great deal more 
than ours do- — the owners get it. 

Q. How do you run that gear? — A. Either the captain owns the 
gear or the fishermen own it. If the captain owns it he charges 10 
per cent to the net cash out of the stock. 

Q. He takes 10 per cent? — A. If he owns the gear. Very often 
each dory owns its own gear. The vessel does not own its gear with 
us. 

Q. Are j^ou aware that in Gloucester she has to own the gear — she 
does not get am^thing for it? — A. Previous to last spring she got a 
good price for it. That is what you had your big strike over last 
spring. 

Q. I am only speaking of that to show that we are laboring imder 
a disadvantage — we have to pay for lost gear? — A. After a certain 
time after the gear is paid for the crew pays for lost gear. 



352 AMERTCAlSr-CANADIAlSr FISHEBTES CONFERENCE. 

Q. AVould tliis aj>reement produce any nioro lisli on iu-coiint of the 
iigreeineni ? — A. This inodvis viAendi? 

Q. Woidd Hie Cauiidiinis ])i'odii('e any more Hsh'^ — A. No; I don't 
think so. 

Q. As I understand this matter the idea Avas to produce more fish — 
you do not think you would? — A. No; I don't think it is ^oinp; lo he 
any wonderful thing for Canada at all. 

Q. You mean on the production i)oint ? — A. No; no oioat IhiuL''. 

By Secretary Eedfield: 

Q. The advantage in the way of producing more Hsh — as I un<l('i- 
stand your view the American vessel might jiroduce more? — A. Yes: 
I believe in the wintei- season we would hnd American vessels land- 
ing on oiu" shores. For instance ihei'e was a vessel landed the 
other day at Liverpool with 80,000 — and wanted us to nudce them 
an offer for them. We did so but Ave didn't get it — some other 
l)arty bid against us — she landed her fish there and sold them there. 

Q. If a Canadian A^essel in the fresh fish trade could go innnedi- 
ately from the fishing grounds to Boston or Gloucester and imme- 
diately back again, she might catch more fish? — A. She might if she 
was going to land her fish there. 

Q. You knoAV it is true that many million ixtiinds of fresh fish 
are sent into the United States from Canada every year? — A. Yes,, 
sir; no doubt about that — not from our section of the country — not 
\essel fish, Mr. Eedfield — those are fish caught by our boat fishermen. 

Mr. BirrrTAiN. I feel sure that if an appropriation Avere passed 
alloAving Mr. Short to build the proper equipment, he Avould very 
soon produce live times the (juantity of fish. 

By Secretary Redfikij): 
Q. Do you stand for that, Mr. Short?— A. There is no doubt that 
Ave could produce nmcji more — Ave are going to produce more lisli — 
Ave are not g<ving to let the country suffer for lish. 

Mr. Davis : 

Q. You Avere speaking about these fish that were sold — have you 
any idea Avha<- they sold tliem for? — A. Yes, sir; 1 knoAv exactly. 

Q. What did they get? — A. They got G cents a pound right 
straight through for everything they had — that consisted of herring, 
cod, cusk, and hake. 

Q. Some people that I know sold a cargo at Halifax for Avliich 
they only got 3| cents. — A. T think that is a mistake, Mr. Davis. 
The boat fishermen have been getting (') cents a [)onnd for every- 
thing landed. 

Q. T don't thinlv there is any mistake about the projiosition — I 
helped pay the delicit. — A. When Avas this? 

Q. Recently — about three Aveeks ago. 

Mr. Found. It depends upon Avhat condition the hsh Avere in. 

Mr. Shout. They might have been split.- 

Mr. Davis. I think they ate them. 

Mr. Short. Perhaps they Avere not fit to be used in a fresh con- 
dition. If they Avere used as split fish foi' salting then that Avas all 
thev Avere worth. 



AMERICAN-CAN ADIAN" FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 353 

Chief Justice Hazen: 

Q. I wanted to ask j^ou about the lobster industry, Mr. Short, 
It has been represented to us, and of course statistics show it, that 
the lobster industry is a waning industry. — A. No question about 
that. 

Q. It has been suggested that if the lobster industry is going to 
be preserved for the future that some very drastic action will have 
to be taken. It has been suggested to this commission that it would 
be desirable that we should have a size limit on the lobster similar 
to the size limit in Massachusetts — that the limit should be the 
same. At the present time 9 inches is admitted to Boston. It was 
suggested to us by a gentleman in the United States that that limit 
was too small — that the limit ought to be 10^^ inches and if that 
limit was placed in the United States and if we had a similar law 
for that part of Nova Scotia west of Halifax and for the Bay of 
Fundy districts, the counties of St. John and Charlotte, it would 
do a great deal to restore the industry. What do you think about 
the lobster industry, and what do you believe ought to be clone to 
preserve and restore it ?— A. There is no question that unless some 
drastic measures are taken, and taken very quickly, that the lobster 
industry is going to be exterminated completely. This year so far 
the catch is almost a failure, and my idea is that the only way that 
we are going to conserve the lobster is to have a size limit and see 
that the law in connection with it is rigidly enforced. Otherwise, 
as I say, the fishery will be exterminated, because at the present 
time they are catching and canning everything that has an eye in 
it. I have seen lobsters «not more than 4 inches that they were 
using in the canneries. If destruction like that goes on it is going 
to exterminate the industry. 

Q. Under existing conditions the people along the shore to the 
west of Halifax can send their lobsters into the American market 
by way of Yarmouth? — A. At this season of the year there is a 
boat twice a week and usually in the summer, until last summer, 
there was a boat every day. 

Q. Suppose that all canning was abolished in that district, say 
from Canso or Halifax westward — no further licenses granted and 
a size limit of not less than 9 or KH inches was made compulsory — 
what would be the effect in your opinion upon the men who catch 
lobsters, in the course of a few years? — A. The men who catch 
them would be very much better off — no question about it — because 
the small lobsters would have a chance to grow. 

Q. You would favor the abolition of canning along that coast? — 
A. I certainly would, sir, and I believe that is the only remedy 
that we have got to save our lobster industry. So long as they 
can everything that is caught it is only a question of a few years 
before the lobster fishery will be a thing of the past. 

Q. Such an arrangement as outlined would be in the interest of 
the men catching the lobsters because the canneries Avill have noth- 
ing to can? — A. It would be the most popular legislation that has 
ever been enacted. There will be a great deal of opposition from 
the canners, but the amount of investment in the canneries to-day 
is very very small indeed. 

51950—18 23 



854 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

Q. lias yoiii- attention been directed at all to the shad fishing in 
the Bay of Fiindy? — A. 1 know that it is practically a thing of the 
past. The Bay of Fundy used to produce some pretty good catches of 
shad, but the last few years they have been a failure. 

Q. Would you favor the passage of a law or regulation that would 
absolutely prohibit the catching of shad for three or four years? — A, 
r believe that is the only way you are going to save it at all by per- 
haps three .years of close season. That is the only remedy there is. 

Q. Have you caught shad over in the vicinity of Digby? — A. We 
used to catch them in the^ Annapolis River. 

Q. Are there any left there? — A. We do not see a shad there at all. 

By Secretary Eedfield : 

Q. (To Capt. Benjamin A. Sniilb.) Do you buy any dories in 
Shelburne? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Why do you buy them there? — A. They are cheaper — we save 
money. The fishermen Avho go hand lining for us belong around 
Shelburne County and they prefer the Shelburne dory to the 13-foot 
dory we used to use at home — in addition they are cheaper. 

Q. So that for the vessels that are fishing for you operating under 
the American flag, you buy the Canadian-made dory? — A. I should 
say the last five years that 60 or 70 per cent were bought in Shel- 
burne. I think we have an order there for about 200 this coming 
season. T woidd like to say one word with regard to increased pro- 
duction. 1 believe that if this arrangement is brought about — I have 
been asked s(M'{n'al times for two or three of our vessels which have 
small auN:iliari(>s and which are hauled up in (Gloucester after the sea- 
son is over; if tlicy could tnke those vessels and fish out of here T am 
pure that it would jidd to the production of fish- — they could be landed 
at Lakej^ort or Yarmouth, because it is a fact — Mr. Davis will agree 
with me that we have a certain fleet that is liarded up about four or 
five months. 

By Dr. Smith: 

Q,. The nuickerel seining fleet? — A. Yes, sir. 
By Secretary Redfield: 

Q. Plow many are there? — A. I would say eSO. . 

Q. Is this a correct statement — that by reason of these existing 
regulations or by reason of the absence of an international arrange- 
ment, at this time when the countries both need food, equipment that 
is capable of pi-oducing food to the extent of 30 vessels is idle for a 
numb(H' of months in the year? — A. Yes, sir; that is the case with ua 
at Gloucester. 

By Dr. Smith : 
Q. Why not use them out of Gloucester during the time when the 
mack'erel are in on your shores? — A. We can not get enough men to 
go in them. The men do not want to come to Gloucester and go off 
shore fishing, and by having a little auxiliary power they could be 
o])(M'ated on this coast — at home. They are in every night and go 
out about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Our Portuguese fleet goes 
out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning — the next afternoon they are in 
Boston with five, ten, or fifteen thousand pounds of fish — we call 
them our shore fleet. 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 355 

Q. Would you expect such a fleet if it came to the Nova Scotia^ 
coast to sell its catch in the Nova Scotia ports? — A. Naturally I think 
they would. 

Q. Would that be the logical thing to do rather than attempt to 
sell in Boston or Gloucester after transshipment ? — A. I had in mind 
certain captains who wanted to take one of our vessels and fish. They 
said they would like to take it down home. 

Q. Is it a fact that these vessels which are idle from November to 
March are the finest vessels in the Gloucester fleet? — A. No, not 
necessarily. What I referred to were vessels equipped with auxiliary 
engines. 

Q. How big are they ? — A. The Pythian is about 55 or 60 tons — the 
H. B. Thomas 75 or 80 tons. 

Mr. Short. Their catches would be transported to Boston? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Hazex. You say these vessels would operate from Nova Scotia 
ports and sell their catch where they could to the best advantage — 
either in Canadian markets or transfer it to merchant vessels or send 
it by train to New England? 

Mr. Smith. The idea would be you could take it and operate it 
to suit yourself. 

^fr. Eedfield. That is precisely what you are doing in the Gulf 
of Mexico States. Men who are otherwise idle would likewise be 
employed as well as the capital invested in the vessels. It has a 
threefold advantage — the men would get greater employment, the 
vessel would have greater earning power per annum, and the com- 
munities, one or both, would get a greater supply of food. 

STATEMENT BY MR. THOMAS FERGUSON, CHAIRMAN CANADIAN 
BOARD OF STEAMSHIPS. 

By Chief Justice Hazen: 

Q. You are the chairman of the Steamship Inspection Board of 
the Dominion of Canada? — A. Yes. 

Q. An official of the Marine and Fisheries Department? — A. Yes. 

Q. We were told in the United States that there were difficulties 
in the way of having vessels transferred from an American to a 
Canadian register because of the strict laws in Canada regarding the 
inspection of boilers and machinery — can you throw any light on 
the subject? — A. Yes, sir; I think I can. In the first place, our steel 
jias got to be tested by Lloyd's or some disinterested individual before 
it enters into the construction of the boilers. The United States 
doesn't demand that. They take the certificate of a member of the 
steel producing company, who is an interested party. We can not 
accept that. 

Q. You are quite sure of that statement? — A. I am pretty sure 
of that statement. They take the steel maker's stamp that it is 60.000 
pounds. The test is made by one of the firm and not by Lloyd's or 
a proper man as we demand. Consequently unless we can get a cer- 
tificate that the steel has been tested by a certificated man we will 
not give it 60,000 pounds — unless we know it is 60,000 pounds. 

Q. What do you do — refuse to accept the boiler at all or with a 
reduced pressure? — A. A reduced pressure. 



356 AMERICAISr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. 

Q. How much reduction do .you allow? — A. 1 have known as high 
as 35 pounds. 

Q. Of being reduced down to or by? — A. Down by. A 175-pound 
boiler would down in some cases to 120. 

Q. I understand from you that if a vessel seeking transfer to the 
Canadian I'egister from the register of the United States has a boiler 
which has been manufactured in the United States, you will not give 
that vessel the same boiler pressure that is allowed in the United 
States, because the steel of which the boiler is jnade has not been 
inspected in the way you think it necessary? — A. If it has been tested 
as steel by an independent surveyor we will accept it. 

Q. How are they tested there? — A. They have, as T say, the official 
man in the steel workes who stamps them, 

Q. You won't accept Iiis stamp? — A. No, sir. 

Q. How do you calculate the amount of reduction you are going 
to impose upon them?— A. It is laid out for us in our regulations. 
We have got to regard it as iron if it is not steel up to that. 

Q. Do you allow those boilers to continue? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the reduced pressure that you think is right? — A. I have 
one here now 

Q. What has occurred, Mr. Ferguson, to make you think that such 
a rule is necessary? — A. It has been there all along. 

Q. What is" the reason of it. Did accidents occur in consequence 
of boilers of this sort coming in and your accepting them at the 
American standard? — A. No, sir; but "if we admitted that boiler 
in that state we admit a boiler that we would not accept from our 
own Canadian manufacturers — the standard is higher. 

(Reference is made to a tracing headed S. S. Saxona^ which is 
marked to pass United States Government requirements for a work- 
ing pressure of 170 pounds per square inch.) 

Q. How long has that been the law in Canada, Mr. Ferguson? — 
A. Since 1884. 

Q. It is, then, a matter of fact that it is more difficult for an Ameri- 
can steam vessel to get entered on the Canadian register than it woulct 
be for a Canadian steam vessel to transfer its registry to the United 
States? — A. As far as boiler is concerned it would be. 

Q. Do you think it is better to maintain that standard in Canada — 
I mean for the public safety? — A. So far as the steel test is con- 
cerned; certainly. 

Q. You do not think the steel test in the United States is suffi- 
cient? — A. They could easily get the other test. 

Q. As a result of the test in the United States, which you say is 
not as efficient a test as ours, have there been many accidents in the 
United States, boiler explosions? — A. I don't mean to say that — all 
the boiler plate is the same — the maker's stamp is accepted. 

Q. As a result of that have there been an undue number of dis- 
asters caused by explosions of boilers as compared with similar dis- 
asters in Canada? — A, They have some, but I really never paid much 
attention to that. 

Q,. This standard is adopted for the safety of the public ? — A. Yes ; 
and we have adopted the proper rules as near as possible of Great 
Britain. 

Q. Are they their rules you have adopted? — A. Yes, sir; practi- 
callv their rules. 



AMEBIC Als^-C AN ADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 357 

Q. They are exacting this higher standard than the United 
States?— A. They always have. i • ui 

Q. The question is whether such a high standard is desirable, 
whether in the United States they have had an undue proportion of 
accidents ? — A. I have not paid much attention to that. 

Q. If the standard of the United States is sufficient to provide 
for the public safety, is there any need of having a higher stand- 
ard? — A. We follow the board of trade, which is safe. 

Q. You won't answer my question. If the standard that is adopted 
in the United States is sufficient to provide for the public safety, 
what need is there of having any higher standard ?— A. I don't think 

it is sufficient. i j. i 

Q. What evidence have you to lead you to conclude that the stand- 
ard is iiot sufficient. Is your opinion formed on theory or on prac- 
tical results that have been obtained in the United States?— A. If 
you would allow me to show you this print here [indicating the 
drawing to which reference has been made]— we demand nuts on the 
inside of these stays here [indicating]. It is under consideration— 
we would require the maker, if he wanted to get the pressure that he 
is asking, to put new stays with nuts. 

Q. Do you say that the matter of making some changes is under 
consideration? — A. We take in boilers every year from the United 
States— it has not been open to inspection under construction. 

Q. Your inspectors have not had the opportunity of examining it 
while under construction? — A. Yes. 

Q. Do you think it is necessary for the safety of the public to 
maintain these regulations ?— A. I certainly do. 

Q. And you think the public would not be safe with the regula- 
tions and standard they have in the United States?— A. There is not 
very much difference — there has been more talk made about this 
boiler business than is warranted, perhaps. 

Q. We had this brought before us by the inspector general at 
Washington and we wanted to get to the bottom of it. It has never 
been suggested to you that this has been maintained as a protection 
to the boiler interests in Ontario?— A. Oh, no, sir; they can not cut 

Q. There were certain dredges working m St. John harbor some 
years ago — you cut down their boiler pressure, didn't you? —A. 
Yes: that was on account of the riveting. 

Q. The opinion of your branch of the department must be that 
the regulations of the"^United States are not sufficient for the main- 
tenance of safety?— A. We allow one-fourth of the bursting pres- 
sure. They take'^a little more risk. 

Q. If theirs is sufficient for safety there would be no need or our 
maintaining the extra ?— A. I don't think it is. 
By Secretary Eedfield : 

Q. I would like to have your permission to insert in the record 
this memorandum ? — A. Certainly. 

(Memorandum follows:) 

STPJAM FISHING VESSELS, INSPECTIO.X i)Y. 

Canadian law requires a steam fishing vessel to be inspected the same as any 
ether nonpassenger steamship, except that a certificate may be granted without 
the vessel being in charge of a certified master. 



358 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN inSHEBIES CONFERENCE. 

Nonpusseiiii-er steamships of 150 tons .uross iiiid up are rwiiiiivd to have the 
luill and equii)iuent and boilers and machinery inspected every twelve months. 
TiifiS are not included in this, no matter wliat size. 

There are no rejAulations resardinii' inspection of the hull, tlie inspector 
beiufi required to satisfy himself that it is seaworthy for the service for which 
intended. 

Equipment covers life-savini,' and tire-extin,i;uishin,Li' api)aratus, si,t;nai li.uhts, 
etc.; these are provided for by regulations made by (). C. 

Boiler inspection is made under resulations made l)y (). (1. These are i)rac- 
tically the same as B. O. T. rvdes. jNlachinery inspection except for shafts is 
not made under regulations, the inspector l)ein.n- reipiired to satisfy hims(>lf 
that the machinery is sufhcient for the purpose. 

Nonpassenger steamshii)s including steam tishing vessels of l<>ss than IHO 
tons gross and all tugs, i. e., vessels actually employed -in towing, jire not re- 
quired to have annual hull inspection but are re(iuii-ed to comply with the regu- 
lations regarding equipment, boat's lights, etc. 

Nonpassenger steamships not exceeding 150 tons and all tugs are reqiiired 
to have annual insi)ection of the boilers and macliinery. The inspector who- 
makes this insitection sees to the equipment. 

All nonpassenger steamships are required to have certiticated engineers in 
charge of a watch, provided that such shijis liaving engines not in excess of 10 
or 20 N. H. P. according as the engines are simple or compound do not reiiuire 
certificated engineers. 

TRANSFER OF STEAMSHIPS FROM U. S. TO CANADIAN KK(ilSI'KY. 

As far as concerns inspection the only inconvenience that may be experienced 
is in regard to boiler pressure, due either to the l)oiler itself or to the engine 
shaft. The shaft question is generally not (W" grave import. 

In regard to boiler ins])ecti(»n cei'lain calculations are made to find the 
bursting pi-essiii-e of the shell of the boiler, and if I be workmanshii) is of the 
highest class the working i>icssni-(' is set at a lilllc less tlian one-fourth this 
bursting pressure. The r>. < ). T. and Lloyd's allow about the same ratio foi' 
the highest class of work betweoni bursting and working ])ressure. This ratio is 
called the factor of safety, and in Canada is 4.25. whilst for the B. (). T. it is 
4.5. Lloyd's is somewliat dillicult to arriAe at. but is about the same as Canada. 

In the U. S. A., wiiilst the factor of safety appears greater than in Canada, 
yet, as they do not allow for the weakness of the longitudinal seam, it is 
actually less. For a .joint with two or more rows of rivets, whether the .joint 
be lap or double-butt strap, the U. S. factor of safety is 5. However, as they 
calculate the woi-king i)ressure considering the solid plate and not taking into 
account the .ioint ])ercentage, the factoi" may be actually as low as 8.8. 

The U. S. authorities take a little more chance than any other recognized 
inspection authovity. 

Considering staying-in boilers, the U. S. regulations allow very nuich greater 
pressure than the B. (). T. or Canadian. In the boilei- ti-acing for Sa.roHd the 
B. O. T. or Canadian pressure would be about 142 lbs. for back plate in com- 
bustion chamber, U. S. would allow about 197 lbs., I^loyd's would allow 104 lbs. 

A boiler coming into (Canada from the U. S. could hardly be expected to be 
allowed more pressure than one built in (Canada or (!reat B>rit;iin, following 
the Canadian, B. O. T., or Lloyd's rules. 

The Canadian, B. (). T., Lloyd's, British Corporation, and Bureau Veritas? 
rules all require that a boiler should be built oi)en to inspection, otherwise the 
pi'essure will be reduced. The IT. S. authorities are satisfied to take the sworn 
statement of th(^ owner of the boiler shop as to bow the work was done. The 
owner is an interested party and the person taking the oatii is more likely a 
cleric or secretai-y who is not in a position to say whether holes were drifted, 
etc. 

Unless reli!U)le information is to hand that work' lias been carried out in 
some parti(;ular way, calculations as to strength are Avorse than useless. If 
you toolv it for granted that holes have been drilled in place after bending, 
whilst, as a matter of fact, they bad been i)unched before bending, you would 
be calculating for a straight rivet filling two boles in line with each other and 
I'adial, whilst, as a matter of fact, the holes would not be in line at all. 

In reducing the pressure of a boilei' which was not oi)en to inspection during 
construction, the most natural and j)ro]ier action is taken. In making your 
calculations you say this part has the appearance of first-class work on the 



AMEKICAN-CAlS'ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 359 

outside, l}ut it may not be. Consequently you reduce the load as you would 
with a bridge or any other structure which was considered doubtful. Concern- 
ing boilers which have not been open to inspection during construction, the 
Canadian regulations lay down that in calculating the working pressure the 
addition of 1 65 shall be made to the factor of safety. This obtained in the 
board of trade regulations until a few days ago. The understanding was that 
if an inspector had not witnesssed the construction of a boiler by visiting the 
shop from time to time when it was being built, he was to assume that the 
worst class of work througliout had been done — that in place of holes being 
drilled in place they had been punched out of place and that they were not in 
line, etc. 

Recently the board of trade, instead of laying down definitely what addi- 
tions to the factor of safety shall be made, have ruled that the matter should 
be submitted to the board, presumably they intend to take into consideration 
the general class of work done in a shop aud to set out a factor accordingly. 
Whilst the Canadian regulations have not as yet been changed, the above 
arrangement has been entered into on several occasions, and it is proposed to 
have a change made at an early date, so that a boiler not open to inspection 
during construction would have the factor of safety determined by the board. 
In no case, however, coiild a boiler which was not open to inspection during 
construction be allowed the same pressure as would be allowed a boiler which 
had lieen open. 

Ottawa. 2d February, 1918. 

Q. Would it surprise you to learn that Lloyd's boiler inspector had 
requested the United States Steamboat Inspection Service to reduce 
its requirements on testing boiler plate, for the reason that they 
were deemed by Lloyd's to be too severe ? — A. I have heard that. 

Q. Having heard, then, that Lloyd's had requested the United 
States department to reduce its requirements because they were too 
severe, do you still think it right to maintain a standard more severe 
than that? — A. I don't think that we are too severe in any one 
particular. 

Q. But more severe than those of the United States ? — A. Slightly. 

Q. And you have heard that Lloyd's think that too severe? — 
A. Yes, I have heard that. 

Q. How do you explain the wisdom of maintaining a standard 
more severe than that which Lloj^d's declare to be too severe? — 
A. Lloyd's is only an insurance agent. 

Q. In other words, you do not think Lloyd's judgment is one that 
should necessarilj^ be followed ? — A. I prefer the board of trade. 

Q. Where did 3^ou get the information that the United States 
Steamboat Inspection Service accepted the maker's stamp? — A. We 
get frequent boilers submitted by the United States owners to come 
into Canada, and we could not get any record of where the steel was 
made and no stamp — it evidently was given by the makers when the 
material was put into the construction of the boilers. 

Q. Did you ever ask the Steamboat Inspection Service of the 
United States their rule? — A. No. 

Q. Did you ever ask them to furnish you with a copy of their regu- 
lations for the testing of boilers? — A. We ask the man who owns 
the boiler to produce a record of the bursting pressure. 

Q. Did you ever ask them to give 3^ou a copy of the regulations ? — 
A. Xever — that was a matter for the owner of the boiler. 

Secretary Eedfield. Before you make a public statement of the 
kind that you have mad I would very earnestly suggest that you give 
us the privilege of furnishing you the official documents. I would 
like to state that the Steamship Service of the United States never 
accepts from any steel maker his stamp or statement as to the quality 



360 AMEBICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEKENCE. 

of his boiler pliitc. In every mill making boiler plate an officer of 
the Steanishi]) Inspection Service is stationed, wholly independ- 
ent of the boiler-phi te maker or the steel maker. He must personally 
examine the plates and he must personally stamp the plates with his 
own stamp and no plate is allo>ved to go into any boiler for marine 
purposes in the United States — into any vessel — which is not stamped 
with the name of the United States inspector or a certain proportion 
of which have not been stamped after actual trial by the United 
States inspector himself. At the present moment, because of the 
immense rush for building vessels, we have an extra force of inspec- 
tors stationed at the rolling mill where the plate is made, making a 
constant and unbroken examination of all the steel that is produced. 
It is my recollection that Lloyd's have within a very few weeks re- 
(juested us to modify the regulations for boiler-plate steel because 
they were inmecessarily severe. 

Chief eJustice Hazen. Has that been the practice foi- some years? 

Secretary Redfield. For five years past. 

Q. This is merely a misunderstanding. The fact that a plate does 
bear the manufacturer's stamp is assumed to mean that it has not 
had any official test? — A. It has had official test with interested 
parties. 

Q. Not at all. I read from section 4430 of the Revised Statutes 
of the United States, found on page 18 of Form 800, Department 
of Commerce, Steamboat Inspection Service, July 14, 1917: 

And the Supervising Inspector General may, under the direction of tlie 
Secretary of donnnei-ce, detail assistant inspectors from any local inspection 
district where assistant inspectors are employed, to insiiect ii-on or slot'l l)oiler 
])'ates at the mills where the same arc mamifacturcd ; and if the ])hites are 
found in accordance with the rules of the sui)ervisiii,u' inspectoi's, tlio assistant 
inspoctoi- shall stami) the same with the initials of iiis name, followed hy the 
letters and words, " IJ. S. Assistant Inspector," !ind material so stamped shall 
be accepted by the local inspectors in the districts \A'hei-e such material is to he 
manufactured into marine boilers as being in full comijliance with the recpure- 
ments of this section regai-ding the inspection of boilei- ]ilates; it being further 
provided that any person who aflixes any false, forged, fi-auduicnt, spurious, 
or counterfeit of tlie stamj) herein authorized to be i»ut on by an assistant 
inspector, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be lined not less thau 
one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not 
less than two years nor more than five years. 

As an additional element, section 4431 : 

Kvery i)late of boiler iron or steel, made for xise in the construction of steam- 
boat boilers, shall be distinctly and permanently stamped by the manufacturer 
thereof, and, if practicable, in such places that the marks shall be left visible 
when such plates are worked into boilers, with the name of the manufacturer, 
the place whei-c nianuiacturiMl, and the number of pounds tensile strain it will 
bear to the scclional srpiare incli ; and the inspectors shall keep a record in their 
ofhce of the slamjjs u])on all boiler plates and boilei-s wbicli they inspect. 

Also section 4433 : 

The working steam pressure allowable on boilers ccuistructed of plates 
inspected as required by this title, when single-riveted, shall not produce a 
strain to exceed one-sixth of the tensile strength of the iron or steel plates of 
which such boilers are constructed; but where the longitudinal laps of the 
cylindi'ical parts of such boilers ai'e double-riveted, and the rivet holes for such 
boilers have been fairly <lrilled instead of punched, an addition of twenty per 
centum to the working ])ressure provided for single riveting may be allowed: 
Provided, That all otlier parts of such Ixnlers shall correspond in strength to 
the additional allowances so made; and no siilit-caulking shall in any case be 
permitted. 



AMEKICAX-CAXADIAX FJSHEEIES COXFEEElSrCE. 361 

And the portion of 4430 which I omitted : 

Every iron or .•steel plate used in the coustructiou of steamboat boilers, and 
which shall be subject to a tensile strain, shall be inspected in such manner as 
•shall be prescribed by the board of supervising inspectors and approved by the 
iSecretary of Commerce, so as to enable the inspectors to ascertain its tensile 
strength, homogeneousness, toughness, and ability to withstand the effect of 
repeated heating and cooling ; and no iron or steel plate shall be used in the 
•construction of such boilers which has not been inspected and approved under 
those rules. 

I would like to sa.j as a part of this international conference, Mr. 
Chief Justice, that we have a record of every plate used in every 
boiler in everj^ steamboat in the United States, and are read}' to fur- 
nish to your department at any time duplicates of our piililic records 
in the matter. 

A. We do not accept your supervising inspector's test. 

By Chief Justice Hazex : 

Q. Is not that a mistake when it is done in the careful manner 
described here? — A. Certainly. 

Q. That would be a good reason for changing the law — the impres- 
sion I got from what you said was that their s^'stem was not a 
thorough sj'stem? — A. Lloj-d's or Board of Trade Inspector must be 
stamped on the boilers. 

Q. Do you see any necessity of continuing that system now, in 
view of this? — A. It is open for consideration. 

Q. Is not that a very safe and thorough system ? — A. Yes. 

Q. Wiry should we in Canada say that we will not accept it? — A. 
There are other objections. 

Q. What are the other objections? — A. I spoke about not being 
open to inspection while under construction. 

Q. This is inspected under construction? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Only the steel ? — A. Xot by our inspector. 

Q. Are their inspectors not as well qualified as our inspectors? — A. 
Quite as well. 

Q. And quite as anxious as our inspectors to have the boilers 
constructed properly? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where is the objection to accepting their inspection? — A. We 
accept their inspection, but not the steel : it is against the law. 

Q. Simply against the law. I am asking whether there is any 
reason that would justify the continuation of such a law — whether 
the law ought not to be repealed as it undoubtedly places the Ameri- 
can who wants to transfer his vessel to the Canadian registry in a 
position which is very difficult, and the result is no doubt that a 
number of vessels would be on the Canadian register which do not 
come there to-day because of this law which seems to be unnecessarily 
severe? — A. I do not see it in that way. 

By Secretary Redfield : 

Q. •T\'liat is the custom of your department, Mr. Inspector, as 
regards reinspection of vessels? — A. We inspect vessels every year. 

Q. How often during that jeari — A. Any period during the year 
in the discretion of the inspector— they may go on at any time. 

Q. What is your custom as regards reinspections? — A. Annual. 

Q. As regards reinspection, what is your custom? — A. What do 
vou mean, sir ( 



362 AMEKICAN-CAJS^ADIAJS" FISHERIES GONEEKENCE. 

Q. How inaiiy times a year after the animal inspection do you 
regularly examine your vessels during the season they are in use? — 
A. We examine our vessels and certificate them for one year. 

Q. How many times after that examination do you reinspect them 
during that year ? — A. The inspector may visit the vessel — he certifi- 
cates tjie ship unless she has been on shore or in an accident. 

Q. Do you know what the custom of the United States Steamboat- 
Inspection Service is in the matter of reinspection i? — A. I should 
judge that they have the same — the inspectors can go on board a ship 
and inspect the hull, the machinery, and equipment. 

Q. Do you know what the custom is as regards reinspection ? — 
A. After a peri-od of some months all passenger «hips — I understand 
you have a traveling inspector who goes on board. 

Q. I do not refer to the traveling inspector — do you know what 
the ride is as to the reinspection of passenger vessels? — A. T have 
the book here — I have not made a study of it. 

Q. The custom in the United States is three times during the 
working season to reinspect every passenger vessel in addition to 
her oi'iginal inspection. Have you a traveling inspector in your 
department ? — A. All our inspectors are traveling inspectors. 

Q. Have you an inspector who does nothing but travel? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. We employ two traveling inspectors who do nothing but travel, 
and whose duties are in addition to the original inspections and the 
three reinspections to inspect the vessels at odd times Avhile in mo- 
tion. — ^A. Our men do that as well. 

Q. But these men who do this do nothhig else.- — A. Still you cer- 
tificate the ship for 12 mouths. 

Q. And occasionally on reinspection cancel it. — A. So do we — 
sometimes we let it go for six months. 

Mr. Short. You asked me something aljout the shad fishery; we 
have here Mr. John Jackson, of St. John, who has been largely inter- 
ested in the shad fisheries. 

Chief Justice Hazen. AVe had the pleasure of hearing from Mr. 
Jackson yesterda.y. If he has anything to add we will be glad to 
hear it. 

Mr. Jackson. I do not think it would be wise for me to take up 
your time with any local matters. You have asked me. sir, and I 
can tell you all I know about it. I know up to the last fi>e or six 
years our Al goods in the shad line came from up the bay. As you 
know, there are several miles of the very finest spawning grounds in 
the world in that particular part of the bay. After the Dehnvare 
shad were depleted the Americans commenced to send there for shad,. 
Avith the result that the industry has disapj^eared. I think a close 
'reason of three or four years would do much good. 

Q. Would you favor the close season being imposed up(m shad 
whether in the harbor or sea or river? — A. I Avould faA^or a close 
season. The Americans go after th6 shad — they start in at Tampa 
in November and December, and everybody has a dab at them on 
their way up here. 

Mr. Davis. One little point, relative to exi)enditure. As I under- 
stand, this 5 per cent which he alloAvs the captain for counnission 
comes out of stock. 



AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKEXCE. 363 

Mr. Short. It conies out of the vessel's share: practically, the 
owners pay it. 

Mr. Davis. I understood the vessel paid it. 

CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEE JUSTICE HAZEN. 

Chief Justice Hazex. I would take the opportunity of expressing 
the thanks of the commission to you gentlemen who have come here 
to give us the very valuable information you have been good enough 
to afford us. I think our thanks are due to Mr. Chesley. of the 
Marine and Fisheries Department, for the arrangements for the 
meeting, as well as to the press of St. John for the very excellent 
representations they have published with regard to these proceed- 
ings — reports that will have the effect, I think, of causing a great 
deal of discussion throughout the country over this fishery question 
and bring it prominently to the notice of people interested in it. 
Here as elsewhere our meetings have been of a very satisfactory 
character, and I was pleased to notice the question was approached 
here and in the United States as well from a very high-minded and 
patriotic point of view. We have been fortunate in having Mr. 
Smith present at our meeting — from Gloucester — and also I am de- 
lighted that we have Mr. Davis, the president of the board of trade 
of that city with us. I regret he was not here yesterday to have 
taken part in our proceedings. 

I think the presence of both these gentlemen from the United 
States has been a distinct advantage to the deliberations of the con- 
ference. We propose to get as full information as possible from 
whatever source we can get it. and as I have stated several times dur- 
ing this inquiry, we will be very much obliged to you or any other 
gentleman, and I hope the press will make a note of this — to anyone 
who has any views to advance in connection with this question — if 
he will be good enough to submit these views in writing. They will 
have the same consideration at our hands as the representations 
made verbally at the different meetings we have held. The ques- 
tion of the rights of fishing vessels in the Pacific is one in many 
respects similar to those on the Atlantic. It will be necessary for 
us to go to the Pacific, both to the Pacific States and the Pacific 
Province of British Columbia, and we will probably have to go up 
to Prince Eupert and across to Ketchikan. It is our intention to 
adjourn to the S-ith day of April, when a full commission will be 
able to attend, and from that time forward our inquiries will be 
made as rapidly as possible, so that the report we make to our respec- 
tive Governments may be submitted at an early date. I am sure 
that the information we are getting in regard to other matters will 
prove of very great value to the Fisheries Department of Canada. 
The information regarding the shad fishery, the views expressed 
here and in the United States regarding the lobster fishery, ought, 
in m}' opinion, to lead to drastic and effective action being taken 
at a very earlv date, and that action ought to be taken from the 
standjDoint of the general benefit of the jDeople of this country and 
without regard to" particular local conditions or particular local 
interests. The result will be to the very great advantage of those- 
engaged in shad and lobster fishing. 



364 AMERICAN-OANAWAN FiHIIKlUKti GONFJOUENOIC. 

I thank you lor yoiii- Uiiuliu'ss in attendin**', for the infornialion 
;L»'i\'('n ns, and the pains yon lia\'e lakcn in <>('tiiiio- the inrorniaiion, 
and declare this lueelin^- adjom-iied lo nx-el ai Seal lie on Ihe 2ll,li 
of April next. 

CLOSING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. 

Secrelai-y h'lODi'iKij). On bcliall' ol" the Anieriean inenibei'S(yl" thecon- 
fcronee I wonid like to add to what the chief justice has so well said 
my note <d' thanks I'oi- Ihe coi'dial and candid si)iri( in which our 
in()uii'ies have been ineL I ai)pivciate as a l)usiness man myself that 
many ol" Ihe (|n(>s(ions we have asked have been very direct and 
almost |)ersonal in their chai'acter, and they have been met in a kindly 
spirit which is all that could be desired. Aiul I am I'lirllier con- 
\inced, <2,'<'ntlemen, of sonicMiin^' which as I have ^row n older has 
become increasingly borne in upon my lhoujL>ht, and that is (hat 
when men I<now each other belier, misunderstandinjis fade away. 
(Jhai'les Land) once said that he could not hale a man whom he 
knew, and tliei'c is a lot of profound wisdom in the statement. We 
ou<>hl not lo lia\(' a di\idino- line; i( ou^iil rathei- to be a (lonnectinj; 
line, and just as the decisions of your courts and the decisions of 
l*jn,<2,lish coiii-ts are recognized by the coui-ts of the United States as 
lia\in<2,' forc-e, so all I (liink of the oHicial aitts of your (ilovernment 
shoidd be reco^ni/ed by oui's, and all ours by yours. \Ve are (piite 
willing- in the Department <d" ('(nnnierce at any time on (|uesti()n or 
as a niattxu' of i-egularity to furnish from our records to your corre- 
sponding" (h^partnient, Mr. (;hief ,Iustice, any ollicial facts or ligures 
that will be mutiudly helpful. There is no reason in the world 
why it should not be done. It is ordinary connnon sense to do it. 
It surely is a pity on either side of an ima<2,'inary line for two ^reat 
kindred peoples wdiose ideals are the same and whose pur])oses are 
kindly lo o|)erate as if (lial (hinf»; whicli none of us can see and over 
which any of us can slep a( will were something greater than a 
Cniinese wall, whic^h obliged us to blind our eyes when we look that 
way, and thitd< of them otluM" than as fi'iends. T rejoice in (he 
close associations with (hese splendid men of Canada, sent by her tobe 
a pari of this conference; I rejoice in meeting you men of (^anada — 
in 'knowing one another better, so that the glad hand may take the 
pla(te of (he cold heart. 1 thaidc you. 

(Adjoui-ned.) 



EXHIBITS. 



EXHIBIT A. 

Memorandum re-specting payment of fishing bounty in Canada. 

The payment of fl.shing bounty was started in 1882. It originated as follows: 

Article 22 of the treaty of Washington, 1871, provided for the appointment of 
a commission to determine the amount of the excess value of the privileges 
accorded t) United States fishermen in Canadian waters ovei rhose granted to 
Canadian fishermen in United States waters under the treaty. Tliis commission 
awarded .$5 500 000 to be payable to Great Britain. Of this amount $1,500,000 
was paid to Newfoundland and $4,000,000 to Canada. 

While this sum went into the Canadian consolidated revenue, it was decided 
to distribute yearly a sum equal to 4 per cent thereon — $160.000 — amongst the 
At'antic fishermen and the owners of fisliing vessels and fishing boats with the 
ob.iect of encouraging the development of the sea fisheries and the building of 
fishing vessels. 

Owing to the large number of claimants, the amount paid to individuals is so 
insignificant that it is neither having the effect of encouraging people to go into 
fishing nor the building of fishing vessels, nor of placing Canadian fishei'men at 
any advantage over their competitors. This will be obvious from the fol- 
lowing : 

In 1882 the total number of fisliermen who received bounty was 29.932. Of 
these, 6 486 were in vessels ranking from 10 tons upward and 2:^..446 in inshore 
fishing boats. 

In 1916 — the last year for which the record is available — 28.137 fishermen 
received bounty, or a decrease of 1 795. Of these, but 5,455 were in vessels 
ranging from 10 tons upward, a decrease of 1,031, and 22,682 in inshore boats, 
a decrease of 764. 

The amount of bounty paid in each instance in anj- year depends on the total 
number of claims submitted. U.sually it is about — 

On fishing vessels, $1 pjer ton, register up to a maximum of $80. 

On fishing boats. $1 per boat. 

To fishern:en fishinii: from boats, $3 50 each. 

To fishermen To fishermen fishing from vessels, $6.50 each. 

Since 1897 the amounts have been as follows : 



Year. 


Vessels. 


Men. 


Boats. 


Men. 


Year. 


Vessels. 


Men. 


Boats. 


Men. 


1897 


Per ton 
81.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
1 1.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 


Each. 

?6.00 
6. .50 
7.00 
6.-0 
7.00 
7.25 
7.30 
7.15 
7.10 
7.10 


Each. 

SI. 00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 


Each. 
83. .50 
3.50 
3. .50 
3. .50 
.3. .50 
3.80 
3.90 
3.75 

. 3.65 
.3.75 


1907 


Per ton. 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 
11.00 


Each. 
7.40 
7.2.5 
7. .50 
7.60 
7.15 
6.90 
6.70 
6.40 
.5.90 
6.45 


Each. 
1.00 
1.00 
1. 00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 


Each. 
4.00 


189« . . 


1908 .-. . 


3.90 


1899 


1909 


4.2.5 


1900 


1910 


4. .30 


1901 


1911 


4. 10 


1902 


1912 


3. 95 


1903 


1913 


3. 93 


1904 


1914 


3. 6.5 


1905 


1915 


3. ATy 


1906 


1916 


4.10 









Up to 80 tons register. 



Wm. a. Fot-m. 



EXHIBIT B. 

Depaetment of Commeece, 

Washinfftr/n,, September 1, 1911. 
Collector of Customs, 

New York, N. Y. 
Sir: The department has received your letter of the -SOth ultimo, inclosing 
a letter from the British con.sul general in which he inquires whether the 
action of your officers was correct in the case of the British steam trawler 
Coquet. 

365 



366 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

On March 31 last the British steam trawler Coquet entered your port with 
a cargo of fresh tish, having cleared from a port in Canada and caught the 
hsh after such clearance. Due entry was made of the vessel and cargo and duties 
paid on the fish. Application was made by the master for a clearance for the 
fishing grounds, he stating that he desired to make your port a base of fishing 
operations, the market there being more satisfactory to him than the Canadian 
markets. He stated that it was to be understood that he would enter his 
catch on each arrival and pay regular duties. He was advised by your oflice 
that without departmental in .tructions in the matter your office would refuse to 
grant clearance as requested. The master thereupon cleared his vessel for a 
Canadian port. 

As the Coquet had left your port for Canada when your letter was received, 
a specific case was not before the department for a ruling and instructions were 
not considered necessary on the hypothetical question involving, besides con- 
struction of the statutes, a consideration of national policy. This hypothetical 
(luestion is now presented by the British consul genei'al. 

The department prefers that the question, which is of considerable im- 
portance, should be presented to it through diplomatic channels as is usual in 
similar cases. You may so advise the British consul generjil. 

You will regard this letter as a reply also to your letter of July 25, inclosing 
a letter of inquiry addressed to you by the Hon. C. Jameson. M. P., House of 
Commons, Ottawa. Canada. 
Respectfully, 

Charles Earl, Acting Secretary. 



EXHIBIT C. 



Treasury Department, 
United States Customs Service, 
Fort of Bofttou, .l/r/.s.s'.. ,J%me If, IBIJ/. 
Commissioner of Navigation, 

Washinfitoii. ]). ('. 
Sir : I respectfully beg to refer to my letter of April 2-5, inclosing a copy 
of a letter from the deputy collector at Gloucester, requesting instructions as 
to whether foreign fishing vessels arriving from the fishing grounds will be 
allov.'ed to enter. I have received no reply to this letter. I am to-day in receipt 
of a letter-from the above-named deputy in which he writes. " I am informed that 
such fishing vessels are expected at this port shortly." It se'^ms to be of the 
utmost importance that we should receive the instructions of the bureau in 
time to know Avhat action to take. 
Respectfully, 

(Sgd.) v.. BiLLixGS, Collector. - 

W, F. J. 



EXHIBIT D. 



.Tt-NK .5, 1914. 



Collector ok C^t'stoms. 

Bo-ston. Mas.'i. 
SiK : The I>ureau has voceived and given coiisWIei-ation to y:ii!r letter 'if April 
25, in wliich you inclose a letter frimi the <[epnty collector of customs at 
Gloucester, jiropounding the following hypothetic!'] qu<:\-;tions : 

1. Miiv a Canadian fishing vessel be entered at a United States customhouse 
when it has arrived direct from the fishing grounds? 

2. May a vessel enter at a United States customhouse with a cargo of fish 
caught by the vessel but under a clearance for the United States procured from 
a Canadian port before the cargo v>'as caught? Al :o, if the clearance is granted 
after the cargo is caught? 

3. If an entry is permitted at a United States customhouse under any of the 
above conditions should a clearance be granted and to what place (fishing 
grounds or a port ) ? 

1. As you already have been instructed in the case of the British steam 
trawler Coquet the American fisheries are reserved to vessels of the United 
States and Canadian fishing vessels can not be permitted to engage in this 
business. You will therefoi-e refuse both clearance and entry to any foreign 
vessel which attempts to enter the American fisheries. 



AMEEICAX-GAiJs^ADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 367 

2. Tliis question is exceedingly difficult. Ordinarily, a vessel entering your 
port with a proper clearance from a foreign port is entitled to entry pi-ovided 
such clearance from the foreign port is bona fide and is not an attempt to evade 
the navigation laws of the United States. This does not apply to the case of a 
vessel which clears before she secures her cargo of fish or where the cargo of 
fish is secured first and the clearance from a foreign port is for the purpose of 
evading our law. Before permitting the entry of any such vessel, where the 
evidence is clear that an attempted evasion of the law is involved, you may 
communicate with the department. 

3. If a vessel applies to you for a clearance to a Canadian port, the bureau 
does not perceive how you can refuse such clearance unless you have positive 
•evidence that such application for clearance is fraudulent aiid an attempt to 
■evade the law in which case clearance should be refused. 

You will understand the difficulties involved in these questions and they are 
to be avoided wherever practicable. 
Re.spectfully, 

(Signed) E. T. Chamberlain. 

Commissioner. 



EXHIBIT E. 

SECTION 442 6 OF THE KEVISEI) STATUTES. 

Sec. 4-126. The hull and boilers of every ferryboat, canal boat, yacht, or other 
small craft of like character propelled by steam, shall be inspected under the 
provisions of this title. Such other provisions of law for the better security 
of life as may be applicable to such vessels shall, by the regulations of the board 
of supervising inspectors, also be required to be complied with before a certifi- 
cate of inspection shall be granted, and no such vessel shall be navigated with- 
out a licensed engineer and a licensed pilot : Provided, however. That in open 
steam launches of ten gross tons and under, one person, if duly qualified, may 
serve in the double capacity of pilot and engineer. All vessels of above fifteen 
gross tons carrying freight or passengers for hire, but not engaged in fishing as 
a regular business, propelled by g;is, fluid, naphtha, or electric motors, shall be. 
and are hereby, made subject to all the provisions of section forty-four hundred 
and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the in- 
spection of hulls and boilers and requiring engineers and pilots, and for any 
violation of the provisions of this title applicable to such vessels, or of rules or 
regulations lawfully established thereunder, and to the extent to which such 
provisions of law and regTilations are so applicable, the said vessels, their mas- 
ters, officers, and owners shall be subject to the provisions of sections forty-four 
hundred and ninety-six, forty-four hundred and ninety-seven, forty-four hun- 
dred and ninety-eight, forty-four hundred and ninety-nine, and forty-five hun- 
dred, relating to the imposition and enforcement of penalties and the enforce- 
ment of law. 

All vessels of fifteen gross tons or less propelled in whole or in part by gas, 
gasoline, petroleum, naphtha, fluid, or electricity, and carrying passengers for 
hire, shall carry one life-preserver, of the sort prescribed by the regulations of 
the board of supervising inspectors, for every pnssenger carried, and no such boat 
while so carrying passengers shall be operated or navigated except in charge of 
n person duly licensed for such service by the local board of inspectors. No 
examination shall be required as a condition of the obtaining of such a license, 
and any such license shall be revoked or suspended by the local board of inspec- 
tors for misconduct, gross negligence, recklessness in navigation, intemperance, 
or violation of law on the part of the holder, and if revoked, the person holding 
such license shall be incapable of obtaining another such license for one year 
from the date of revocation. 



EXHIBIT F. 



SECTION 4463 OF THE REVISED STATUTES. 

Sec. 2. The board of local inspectors shall make an entry in the certificate of 
inspection of every ocean and coastwise seagoing merchant vessel of the United 
States propelled by machinery, and every ocean-going ves.sel carrying passen- 



368 AMKRTGAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

f^ers, the luiiiiiiuini luiiiibor of licensed deck ofUcers required for her safe nuvi- 
^jition {iccordins to the followiiif? scale: 

That no such vessel shall be navi.^ated uidess she shall have on board and in 
iier sei'vice one duly licensed master. 

That every such vessel of one thousand j;ross tons and ovei", propelled by ma- 
chinery, shall have in Jier sei'vice and on board three licensed mates, who shall 
stand in Ihrce watches while snch vessel is beinj,^ navigated, unless such vessel 
is (<n.uaKed in a I'un of less Ihan four hundred miles from the port ol: departure- 
lo I he j)ort of linal destination, then such vessel shall have two licensed mates; 
and every vessel of two hundred fJii'oss tons and less than one thousand gross 
tons, propelUul by machinery, shall have two licensed mates. 

That ev(>ry such vessel of one hundred f^'ross tons and under two hundred 
sross t(ms, propelled by machinery shall have on board and in her service one 
licensed mate; but if such vess(4 is enya.ned in a trade in which the time re- 
([uired to make the ])assa.i;e from the port of departure to the port of destina- 
tion (>\ce(>ds twenty-four hours, then such vessel shall have two licensed mates. 

'i'liat nolhini!: in this scvlion shall be so construed as to prevent local inspec- 
tors fi-om increasing- the ninnlxn- of licensed oHicers on any vessel subject to the 
iiisiieciion laws of the United States if, in their judgment, such vessel is not 
sn(lici(>njly manned for her safe navigation: Provided, That this section shall 
not apply to fishing or whaling vessels, yaclits, or motor boats as defined in the 
act of .lnn(> ninth, niii(>teen hundred and ten. 



EXHIBIT G. 



An act to i)i-oniote tlie wclfiin; of Auicrlcan KOMiiien in the morcliant marine of the 
United Stales; to abolish arrosl and imprisonment as a penalty for desertion, and to 
secni-e tlie ahrosatlon of treaty provisions in relation thereto; and to promote safety 
at sea. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and ffoiise of RepreHentative.'i of the United States 
of Anieriea, in CongrefiH asficmblcd. That section forty-five hundred and sixteen 
of th(> IJevised Statut(»s of tlu> Tnited States be, and is hereby, amended to 
read as follows : 

Sec. 4ni(). In case of desertion or casualty residting in the loss of one or 
moi-e of th(> seamen, the master nmst shiji, if obtainable, a number equal to the 
mnnber of those whose sei-vices he has been deprived of by desertion or cas- 
ualty, who must be of the same or higher grade or rating with those whose 
places they till, and report the same to the United States consul at the first 
port at which he shall arrive, without incui-ring the penalty prescribed by the 
two preceding sections. This section shall not apply to fishing or whaling 
vessels or yachts. 

Sec. 2. That in all merchant vessels of the United States of more than one 
liundred tons gross, excerpting those navigating rivers, harbors, bays, or sounds, 
(exclusively, the sailors shall, while at sea, be divided into at least two, and 
the tiremen. oilers, and water tenders into at least three watches, which shall 
be kept on duty successively for the performance of ordinary work incident to 
the sailing and management of the vessel. The seamen shall not be shipped to 
work alternately in the fireroom and on deck', nor shall those shipped for deck 
duty be required to work in the fireroom, or vice versa; but these provisions 
shall not limit either tlie authority of the master or other officer or the obedi- 
ence of the seamen when, in the judgn\ent of the master or other ofiicer, the 
whole or any part of tlie crew are needed for the maneuvering of the vessel 
or the iierformance of work necessary for the safety of the vessel or her cargo, 
or for the saving of life aboard other vessels in jeopardy, or when in port or 
at sea from requiring the whole or any part of the crew to participate in the 
performance of tire, lifeboat, and other drills. While such vessel is in a safe 
harbor no seaman shall be i-equired to do any unnecessary work on Sundays or 
the following-named days: New Year's Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, 
Thanksgiving I>ay, and Christmas Day, but this shall not prevent the dispatch 
of a vessel on regular schedule or when ready to proceed on her voyage. And 
at all times while such vessel is in a safe harbor, nine hours, inclusive of the 
anchor watch, shall constitute a day's work. Whenever the master of any ves- 
sel shall fail to comply with this section, the seamen shall be entitled to dis- 
charge from such vessel and to receive the wages earned. But tliis section 
shall not apj)ly to fishing or whaling vessels, or yachts. (Seamen's act, Mar. 
4, 1915.) 



AMEEICA:N--CANADIAiSr FISHERIES OONFEEENCE. 369 

EXHIBIT H. 

Office of the Solicitor, Depaetmext of CoiiMERCE, 

Was]iiiigfo)i. January 29, 1918. 

SiE : lu response to your inquiry as to wliat sections of tlie seamen's act are 
applicable to iisliing vessels, I have the honor to advise you that, in my opinion, 
the only provisions of the act which apply to fishing vessels are: 

Section 6. The applicable provisions of which are : 

1. The first paragraph, which applies to fishing vessels of 100 tons register 
or over, the construction of which was or shall be begun after March 4, 1915. 

2. The third paragraph, which applies to steam fishing vessels plying upon 
tlie :\Iississippi Kiver or its tributaries. 

8. Tlie fourth paragraph, which applies to all fishing vessels the construction 
of which was begun or whiclu shall be begun after March 4, 1915. 

4. The fiftli paragraph, which apiilies to all fishing vessels. 

Section 9. All of the provisions of which apply to fishing vessels. 

Section 12. Which exiu-essly brings fishing vessels within its scope. 

Section 14. Which applied to all steam fishing vessels over 65 feet in length 
navigating the ocean, or any lake. bay. or sound of the United States. 
Respectfully. 

E. T. QUIGLEY, 

Assistant Solicitor. 
The Secketakv of ("o.m.mkrce. 



EXHIBIT I. 



Department of Commerce, 

BXJREAIT OF NaVT(,ATIOX. 

Wasliiugto)). Januaryi 22, 191S. 

FISHERIES matter. 

Memorandum for Secretary Redfield. 

The following telegrams were sent yesterday. .January 21. and replies de- 
livered this morning: 

.Iaxl'aky 21. 1918. 

Collector of Cl'stoms. 

Seattle. Wa.'slt.: 
Do vou allow foreign (Canadian) fishing vessels to clear for high seas: and 
if so." under what conditions and by whal authority".' Is practice general 
with vouV Wire rcjily jiromptly. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 

Coiinnissioncr. 
Keiteat lo deputy collector cusroms, Ketchikan, Alaska. 



Seattle. .Innunnj 21. 

Commissioner Navigation. 

Wnshi)igton. 
Your telegram to-day. This office does not grant Canadian fishing vessels 
clearance f(U- high seas. These vessels clear for and enter from foreign port 

Dsxjmheller, 

Colleetor. 



Ketchikan, Alaska, 

January 21, iWS'. 

E. T. Chamberlain, 

Com m issioner Xa viyation, Wasliington. 
Do not grant clearance for high seas to Canadian vessels. They clear for 
Canadian port. but. however, proceeding to sea fisheries from here. 

M. S. DOBBS, 

Deputy Collector. 

Respectfully. „ r„ .^ 

(Signed) E. T. Chamberlain, 

Commissioner. 

51950—18 24 



,'{7() AiVIKh'ICAN-CAXADIAN FISIIKHIKS ("O N KI'.liKNCK. 

loxiiinn^ .1. 

Wash i.\(ii(iN, 1 >. ('., 

AiKjiixf .>S. I!) Id 

V\ II. ( 'in M NCU \ M, 

Chief I )iKiKcl(ir of l''islicrics. 

\i'ir \\ isl iitiihsh r, liiilish Col inn hiu : 
rU'iiso jiscci'liiin liilly and \\ii-»' iiu' lo-tln.v willioul lail wlicdiiT ( "uniuliiiii 
lisliiu^- \(>sS(>ls iifo nllowt'd (d j;-o to Wushinfilon S(;iU> or otlicr Aiiu'riciiii poi-ts 
;iii(l IlitTc iii-o(iir(> llu>ir hiiil. <>r wIkmi tlu'i'c is slmi-l.-i.uc in ('aiiatln is halt ini- 
poflcd ill (iniiiiarx (•(HiiiihM'cial \(>sst>lsV A'crv iiu|i(irlanl. 

W'.M. A. I'\»rMi, 
Slioi-climii lloh I. 

Nkw Wksim iNsiKi;, \ii</iist .^S. I'JIIi. 
W. A. Imum., 

slionlniiii Hold. \\ (isliiniiloii. I>. ('.: 
('anadiaii lisliliiL; vessels ai'c allowed to |iiii'cliasi> bail \\ asliiimtoii Slatt' or 
ollior AnuM-ican ports witlioid an.\ ,'ost lictioiis otlici' than coiupls in::' with 
cnstoni iv.uulations. ('oiTol)orato(l by Anioricaii Cusioms Hlaiiio and Ilauar. 
Can noi asccilain spccilic casi* wlu'i't' bail has bt-cn imported in ordinary coni- 
uuM'cial vessels. l>nty of I cent jier )(oniul and 7' per cent war lax i)rohibiis. 
More fonveident and econoiiiica! lor Canadian vessel to ^d to Anieriean ports. 

(Si,i;'ne(h l'\ 1 1. Cr\MN(;iT.\M. 



F.xiunrr k. 



Kexised Statutes ;>I0!>. 'I'lie niastei- •)!' any loreimi vessel, ladiMi or in ballast, 
arriving;', whether by s(>a or olbeiw is(>, in tli(> waters of tlie I'nited States from 
any forei.u'ii (eri'itory ad.iaet'id (<• the northern, noi'theastern, or northwostern 
frontiiM-s of the rniled Stat(>s shall report at the olliee of any eolloetor or deputy 
collector of the customs, which shall be nt'art>st to the i)oint at which sui'h 
\t>ssel may eiitei- such wali>rs; and such vessel shall not transfer her car.ii'o or 
passenii'ers to an()ther vessel or prin-eed farther iiiland, (>itlUM' to unlade oi- taUe 
in carti'o, without a .si)(>cial pernut from such collectoi" or deputy collector, is 
su(nl xnider and in accordance with such jioneral or ,siH>cial reiiulations as the 
Secretary of the Treasiiry may, in his discretion, front time to time prescribe. 
'riiis .section siiall also api)ly to trade with or throu.uh Alaska. For any viola- 
tion of this section sufh vt>ssel shall be seized and forfc^ited. 



loxiiir.rr i,. 

Treaty b(>t\\(H>n I'nited Slates and (Jrt^at Britain relatinj^' to boundar.x wa- 
ters l>iM\\(HMi t'niled Stales and Canada, signed at Waslnn.iilon, .lanuarv 11. 

AlirU'l.K 1. 

'I'he lli.u'h Contractiuii' Parties a.uree that the naxiualion of all navi.uable 
hoiuidary waliM's shall foivvei- continu(> free and oiten for the purposes of 
commerce to the iidiabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both coun- 
tries. (Hpially sub.iecl, howevt'r, to any laws and r(\u;ulations of eillua- coindry, 
within its own tei-ritory. not inconsist(M>l with such privileii(> of fi(>e navination 
and applyinti' (>quall.\ and without discruuination lo the inhabiianls, ships, 
\«'s,s«>|s, and boats of both c(nnitries. 

It is furtluM' aiii'tH'd that so lonu' as this treaty sh.ill remain in force this 
.sanu> ri,iiiit of navi.yat ion shall extend to th(> waters of Lake -Michi.uan and lo 
all canals connt>ctini;' boinidary waters, and now existin.i;' or which may here- 
after be constructed on eitlu>r side of the lino. l*jither of the llijih Contr.ictini;' 
Parlies may adopt inlt>s and reuulatious sioverninji the use of such can>ils within 
its own territor.x and iiia.v cliai-,ue tolls for the use thereof, hut all such rules 
and n\iiidations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the s\ih.|eets ov citi- 
/(>ns of the lliiih Coutractine Parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both 
of tht> lliiih Contractiui: Parties, and they shall be i>lac(>d on terms of etpiality 
in tlit> u.se thereof. 



AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 



371 



Kxmr.rr .ai. 

Tretuy between United Sintes mikI (Ji-enr liritMiii rehilini:- in iHnuulary waters 
between' Ignited States and i\-mada. siuiu^d at W'ashinuiou. .lanuai-y 11. IHH!). 

I'ttEl.l.M INAl'.Y AKTICI-K. 

I-'or the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are detined as the waters from 
main sliore to main sliore of tlie lakes and rivers and eonnectinii' waterways, or 
tlie portions thereof, alon.i:' wldcli the international boundary between the 
United States and tlie Dominion of Canada i)asses. inchidin!; all bays. arms, and 
iidets thereof, but not includin.t;- trn>ntary waters whicli in their natural chan- 
nels would How into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters rtowinii from 
such lakes, rivers, and waterways. i>r the waters of rivers tlowiuK across the 
b(inndar>'. 



(Vol. f>, Conni- i^tnt. Anno 



Kxinr.rr x. 

p. ()SS4 : K 



S.. soc. 310!i. :u 
. soc. 4.1 



imonded. act Fob. 1T. 1S9S, 



KKfOKT liV .MASIKKS OK FoiaMl.N VKSSKl.S. 

The master of aiiv foreiuii vessel, laden or in ballast, arrivini:-. whether by 
sea or otherwise, in 'the waters of the United States from any foreij;n territory 
adjacent to the northern, iiortheastci'ii. or northwestern froidiers of the I nited 
Stiites sliall r-port at the otiice .>r any collector or ileputy collector of the 
customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter 
such waters: and su<-h vessel shall not transfer her carjio or passenjiers to an- 
other vessel or proceed farther inland, either to unlade or take in cargo, with- 
imt a siiecial permit from such collector, or deputy collector, issued under and 
in accordance with such .general or special regulations as the Secretary of the 
Treasury mav. in his discretion, from time to time jtrescriluv This section 
shall also aiiiily to trade with or through Alaska. Vor any violation of this 
section such vessel shall be seized and forfeitc^d. 



EXlllU.lT (>. 
Fi.'<1iiii!/ rcsscl.s snhl nlhii duriiui tin ruhmhir iions UH'i. inir,. ami IHIH 

1914. 



Rig. 



Name of vessel. 



Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch . . . . 
Sch.... 
Sch ... , 
Sch ... , 
Sch..., 

Sip 

Sch... 
Sch... 
Sch... 
Sch... 
Sch... 
Ga. s . . 
Sch... 
Sch . . . 
Sch . . . 
Sch . . . 
Sch . - - 
Sch - - . 
Sch - - . 
Sch . . . 
Sch . . . 
Ga.s.. 



Effle M. Morrissey 

Flirt 

Belbina P. Dorningos.. 

Selma 

Grace Darling 

Oliver F. Kilham. 

James B. Clark 

Viola 

Thomas A. Cromwell. . 

Alice P. Turner 

Meteor 

Adams 

I Robert E. Harris 

Roosevelt 

Quickstep 

I ■Wm. H. Rider 

i Ella G. King 

i Gossip 

1 Carrie C 

Mattie Winship 

E. C. Hiissey 

Mary Edith . 

Juniata 

Columbus . . 



Gross 
tons. 



120 

119 

97 

122 

75 

73 

70 

26 

128 

192 

125 

77 

21 

41 

104 

68 

75 

122 

75 

77 

SI 

72 

78 

38 



! !?„-„: ™ i Date of sale, 
Port last documented. nnl \ quarter 

""^- I ended— 



South West Harbor, Me British. . . 

Gloucester, Mass do 

.do do 

do |---do 

Siilem, Mass • . . .do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

Boston, Mass do 

Vinalhnven, Me do 

Gloucester, Mass do 

Bosion. Mass do 

New York, X. Y do 

Seattle, ^Vash do 

South AVcst Harbor, Me do 

Ciloucester, Mass do 

(Jo Cuban . . . 

Ido". 15riti.sh. . . 

do ' Cuban... 

&o\'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'. do. 

do do. 

do do. 

Boston, Mass - • - -do. 

Seattle! Wash British. . . 




Mar. 31,1911 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
June 30,1914 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Sept. 30,1914 
Dec. 31,1914 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 



372 



AMEKICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 



Pishing vessels sold alien during the calendar iieurs ]J>]'i, 1915, and 191G — Con. 

1915. 



Rig. 



Sch.. 
Sch.. 
St.s.. 
Ga. s. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Ga. s. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Ga. s. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Sch.. 
Ga. s. 
Ga. s. 
Sch.. 



Name of vessel. 



John R. Bradley 

Independence II 

Fawn 

Oceana 

Olga 

Grace Otis 

Hunter 

Shushartis 

Essex 

J. K. Manning 

Michigan 

Clara A. Benner 

Helen G.Wells 

Tacoma 

Hattie L. Trask 

Pinta 

Mertis H. Perry 

Alice 

Total, 18 vessels 



Gross 
tons. 



112 

14.5 
9 
28 

113 
62 

197 
30 

116 

297 
27 
38 
95 

105 
74 

100 
61 

100 



1,709 



Port last documented. 



Gloucester, Mass. 

do 

Seattle, Wash 

do 

Gloucester, Mass . 

do 

Boston, Mass 

Seattle, Wash 

Gloucester, Mass. 

do 

Seattle, Wash 

Rockland, Me 

Gloucester, Mass. 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Boston, Mass 



Foreign 
flag. 



British. 
..do... 
..do... 
..do... 
..do... 
..do... 
..do... 
-.do... 
..do... 
..do... 
...do... 
..do... 
Cuban . 
British . 
Cuban . 
...do... 
...do... 
British . 



Date of sale, 
quarter 
ended — 



Mar. 31,1915 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
June 30,1915 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Setp. 30,1915. 

Do. 

Do. 
Dec. 31,1915 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 



1916. 



Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch.... 
Sch ... . 
Sch.... 
Ga. s... 
Sch ... . 
Sch ... . 
Sch..., 
Sch..., 
Ga. s.., 
St.s.., 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Sch... 
Sip.... 
Sch... 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Sch . . . 
Sch... 
Sch... 
Sch... 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s.. 
Ga. s. . 



Clintonia 

Lillian 

Mooanam 

Preceptor 

Margaret Dillon 

Lucania 

! Vanessa 

Nellie Dixon 

EllaC 

Harrie A . Heckman 

Paragon , 

Richard 

Frances P. Mesquita 

Eva and Mildi-ed 

Karluk 

Waseca 

Yukon 

Charles Le^^ Woodbury . . 

Monitor 

Edna 

William H. Oakes 

Silver Bear 

Tanana 

Evelyn 

Harriett 

Jorgina 

Conqueror 

Rose Dorothea 

Rose City. . .' 

Agnes B 

Sea Li ght 

Lillian S 



Total, 32 vessesls . 



147 

129 

117 

123 

77 

147' 

130 

111 

7 

105 

115 

134 

105 

46 

321 

24 

17 

105 

137 

12 

70 

28 

26 

15 

95 

103 

139 

147 

24 

11 

19 

10 



2,796 



Gloucester, Mass 

....do 

....do 

....do 

Boston, Mass 

....do 

....do 

....do 

Boothbay , Me 

Gloucester, Mass 

do 

do 

Boston, Mass , 

do , 

San Francisco, Cal . . , 

Seattle, Wash 

do 

do 

Gloucester, Mass 

Salem, Mass 

New York, N. Y.... 

Seattle, AVash 

do 

do 

Gloucester, Mass 

do 

do 

Provincetown, Mass. 

Seattle, Wash 

Ketchikan, Alaska . . 

do 

do 



British . . . 

..do 

..do 

..do 

Cuban . . . 

British... 
...do 

..do 

..do 

...do....: 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

Cuban . . . 

British... 

...do 

...do , 

...do 

...do , 

...do 

...do , 



Mar. 31,1916 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. ■ 

Do. 

Do. 
June 30,1916 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Sept. 30, 1916 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Dec. 31,1916 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 



Grand total, 74 vessels, 6,581 gross tons. 



EXHIBIT P. 



RESOLUTION PREPARED BY DR.' SMITH AND MR. FOUND RELATIVE TO HALIBUT FISHING- 



Whereas the intensive fishing for halibut that has gone on for years on the 
halibut banks of the Pacific off the coasts of Canada and the United States 
has resulted in such serious depletion of the fishery on all but the far northern 
banks as to threaten its commercial extinction ; and 

Whereas all the halibut banks are inhabited by several other kinds of highly 
edible fish which are caught frequently in as large or even larger quantities 



AMEEICAX-CAKADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 373 

than halibut on the haliliut tishiug gear but which tish have in past years 
lieen altogether or largely thrown away as caught, on account of little or no 
market existing therefor ; and 
Whereas these fish can be prodnced and placed on the markets at vastly cheaper 
prices than halibut, so that it is in the ptiblic interest that a general de- 
mand therefor should be worked up and fishing for such fish as an industry en- 
couraged, thus lessening the pressure on the halibut fishery ; and 
Whereas in the light of the investigations into the life history of the halibut 
that have been carried on up to this time, the most feasible method of ade- 
quately protecting the halibut fishei-y appears to be to divide the waters off 
the coasts of the United States and Canada into defined areas and prohibit 
all fishing for halibut in one area or several such areas for a sufficient ntim- 
lier of years to enable the immature halibut therein to reach maturity, and 
then open such areas to halibut fishing for a given number of years and pro- 
hibit such fishing on the other areas, and so on : and 
Whereas the effect of stich method of protecting the halibut would be to pre- 
vent fishing for the different kinds of "cod"' and other edible fish on such 
areas during the time that halibut fishing thereon would be prohibited, as 
i!ie gear used to catch such fish would also capture halibut, and thus retard 
the development of such fisheries which might otherwise in a few years be 
(if even more economic value to the general public of both countries than the 
halibut : Therefore 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this conference it would be best for the 
respective Governments to have exhaustive scientific investigations continue 
into the nattiral history of the halibut, in order to determine if there is any 
method of properly protecting it without inidtily restricting or retarding the 
development of other important fisheries, and that meantime and forthwith 
each Government exert every feasible effort to create a sufficient demand for the 
different kinds of " cod." flounders, and other edible fish not only to take care 
of the species thereof now being caught by the halibut fishermen, but also to en- 
courage the catching of these fish as a separate industry, and it is so 
recommended. 



EXHIBIT Q. 

Depaktmeist of Cojimekce, 

BtJKEAU of Navigation. 
Washi)ifjton. Januaru 2'f, 1918. 
Memorandum for Secretary Redfield : 

I was wrong in stating so emphatically that the act of 189S amending section 
3109 does not apply to the Atlantic ports of the United States. It would apply, 
if cases arise in such ports, wliicli is seldom, if ever, so far as I am aware, 
the case. The act of 1898 was designed to meet Alaska conditions. To cover 
both the seaboard of Alaska and the Yukon and Stikine Rivers the words " by 
sea or otherwise " were incorporated in the amendatory act. Those words ex- 
tend the act to Atlantic ports. I hasten to correct my statement into which 
I was led by reflection solely upon the purpose of the act of 1898 and by the 
fact that I have no recollection of a case under the act ever having coriie to 
my notice. 

I inclose full memoranda on the act of 1898. 
Respectfully. 

(Signed) E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner. 



EXHIBIT R. 



DEPAETMEXT of COitMEECE. 

Bureau of X'avigatiox. 
WasJiingfoii. -hDmarii 2.'/. 1918. 
Memorandum for Secretary Redfield : 

Section 3109 of the Revised Statutes was originally section 41 of the act of 
July 18, 1866, '"An act further to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes." 
The .section related to foreign vessels arriving in the waters of the United 
States from foreign territory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, and 



374 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEKIES CONFERENCE, 

northwestern frontiers of the United States wiiich were, as the phrase is used 
in other acts, the Canadian frontiers on the Great Lalces and the St. Law- 
i-ence River. 

To stiffen (nir coastwise hiws for tlie development of American merchant 
sliipping- and to meet conditions arisin::' in Alaslva. beins newl.v developed, sec- 
tion 3109, R. S., was amended by the insertion of the underscored words: 

"The niaster of any foreifin vessel, hiden or in l)allast, arrivinu. irluilicr bii 
sea or other ici-sc, in the waters oi the T'nited Siatcs from any foreijiii terri- 
tory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, or northwestern frontiers of the 
United States, shall report at the offiv.e of any collecor or deputy collector 
of the customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may 
enter such waters; and such vessel shall not troiisfer her cargo or passengers 
to another vessel or proceed farthei' inland, either to unlade to take in cargo, 
without a special permit from such collector or deputy, collector issued under 
and in accordance with such general or special regulations as the Secretary 
of the Treasury may, in his discretion, from time to time presci-ilie. This sec- 
tion shall also apply to trade toitli or through Alasln. For any violation of 
this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeited. ( Ileitealed bv Art. 1. 
treaty of Jan. 11. 1909, with Great Britain.)" 

The words " wliether by sea or otherwise." were inserted to coNer liotli tr.ide 
between Alaska and British Gohnnbia by sea and by the Yukon and Stikine 
Rivers. 

The words "such vessel shall not transfer liei' cargo or passengers to an- 
other vessel or " were in.serted to restrict the trade of foreign ships. 

In so far as section 3309 was applicable, t(» British vessels on the Great Lakes 
and the St. Ljiwrence River it was in contlict with Article 1, treaty of January 
11, 1909, with Great Britain, and the Attorney (General, in an opinion dated 
April 2, 1915, held that to this extent section 3109 was superseded [cup.v at- 
tached], and instructions ^^•<'re issued to collectors. ICopy attached. 1 
Respectfidly. 

(Signed.) E. T. Chambeki.ain. Connnissioncr. 



EXHIBIT' S. 



TKKASntY 1 )KFAliTMENT, 

Ofkuk of the Secketaky. 
Wdsliington. D. ('., l-'ehruary 9. ]S98. 
The Hon. Wielcam I'. Fkye. 

Chairman Counnittee on Coininerce. I'. S. Senate 

Sir: Replying to your indorsement ot Sen;ite l»ill 3.")Slt, entitled "A bill to 
amend the laws relating to navigation." in wliicli you I'ciiuest a report from 
this department, I have to state : 

New and peculiar conditions, created by the discovei'y of gold on the Yukon 
River, render desirable the enactment of the inclosed bill : 

First. In order to strengthen and render more explicit the laws declaring 
our general i)olicy that the coasting trade (including trade between the rest 
of the United States and Al.-iska ) sli;ill be resorved exclusively to American 
vessels. 

Second. In order to cover more explicitly this stuation. seagoing vessels 
can proceed to St. INIichael neai- the mouth of the Yukon. The Yukon is very 
shallow, in some i)laces only 4 feet deep. Transfers of cargo and passengers 
from deep-draft seagoing vessels to river vessels drawing little water, are 
therefore necessary ;it St. ^Michael. Substantially the same is true of the 
Stikine River at Wrangel near its mouth. 

Section 1 is a stronger and more explicit statement of cei-tain provisions of 
section 4347 of the Revised Statutes. It is not put in the form of an amend- 
ment to that section, as the I'evisers of the statutes saw tit to incorpin-ate in 
that section certain legislation based on the treaty of Washington of 1871. The 
]»resent validity of that legislation has for some years been disputed, and to 
avoid any legislative declaration on tl at dispute as a part of this measure, 
where it is not involved the first section is drawn independently though in 
effect it amends indirectly the other portions of section 4347. 



AMEEICAN-CAXADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 375 

The essential amendment is in the words " or for any part of the voyage." 
The question has recently been put to the Treasury whether American goods 
consigned to Alaskan ports from Seattle can be carried in American vessels 
to ^'ictoria, a distance of only 72 miles, and at Yictor'a be put on I'ritish 
vessels to he carried to Dyea. a distance of al)out 900 miles, or to St. ]\lichael. 
a distance of about 2,000 miles. The Treasury Department has ruled that this 
is a violation of the laws reserving the coasting trade to American vessels. 
It is a palpable evasion of those laws but in some quarters doubt is expressed 
whether the courts will not decide, as they did in the case of a shipment of 
a cargo of nails from New York to Antwerp by a foreign vessel, and thence to 
San Francisco b,v another foreign vessel that the law had lieen success'vely 
evaded, not violated. That decision led to the amendment of Revised Statutes 
4347, l)y the act of Febrmiiy 1-5. 1S93. prohlbitinu' shipment " via a foreign port."' 
That amendment. ho\Aever, does not, perhaps, fully cover the transactions here 
referred to. The policy of the Un'ted States is to confine carrying by watei- 
for the whole voyage between American ports to American vessels. It is 
believed that section 1 explicitly attirms that policy and removes all doulit. 

Section 2: Section S of. the act of June 19, 1886 inq)oses a i)en;dty of only 
$2 on forei,gn vessels carrying passengers from one American port to another. 
This snnill penalty is wholly inadecjunte to i)reserve the coastwise carrying of 
passengei's to American vesesls on the long and exjiensive voyage from the 
Pacific coast of the I'liiled States to Alaska, up the Yukon, etc. The penalty 
is increased to ^HM. The penalty for the like offense im]>()sed by the Canadian 
laws is .'f;400, and I i-espectfully suggest that the penalty proposed by this sec- 
tion may be increased to that maxinnim. In cases where this may seem ex- 
cessive, the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to nntigate it. 

Section 8 is designated to give the Secretary of the Treasury full powers to 
regulate the transfer of cargoes and i)assengers from deep-sea vessels to shallow- 
river ves.sels bound up the Yukon and Stikine. The conditions under which 
such transfers will occur can not now be fully foreseen, so the besto\val of 
discretionary i)ower in the Secretary of the Treasury seems the <ndy way to 
meet the situation. After one season's experience it will probably be possilVie, 
if desirable, to oiTer for consideration more precise legislation. 

Section 4: Section 8109 of the Revised Statutes is part of a.n act passed in 
1866. The treaty for the purchase of Alaska was made in 1867. There is some 
doubt, therefore, whether section 3109 is applicable to Alaska. This bill makes 
it specifically applicable. The insertion of the words " transfer her cargo or 
passengers to [mother ves.sel." is necessaiy, as seagoing vessels at St. Michael 
do not " proceed farther inland." There is not enough water. Accordingly they 
transfer. The section is a necessary supplement to section 8 of the bill, as it 
fixes the penalty on the vessel for violation of the I'egulations. 
Respectfully, yours, 

L, J. Gagk, Secretory. 
E. T. C. 



EXHIBIT T. 



Depaktment of Commerce, 

BuEEAtr or Navigation, 
Washington, Atrril 26. ]fil3. 
General letter No. 99. 
7'o Collectors of Customs on the Great Jjikes (uid Others Concerned: 

The Attorney General, under date of April 2, 1915, held that section 3109 of 
the Revised Statutes is in conflict with article 1 of the convention concerning 
the boundary waters between the United States and Canada concluded January 
31, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain and the provisions of the 
treaty being later supersede the provisions of section 3109 Revised Statutes, so 
far as they are inconsistent therewith. 

This does not relieve foreign vessels from the requirements of sections 2772, 
2773. and 2774 of the Revised Statutes. 
l'"ou will please be governed accordingly. 

E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner. 



376 AMEKICAX-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 

EXHIBIT U. 

Depaktmknt of Justick, 
Washington, April 2. 191'). 
The lionorable the Skcektaky of State. 

Sir: I have the honor to ackiio\vle(l;j,v the receipt of your U-'tter of January 
30, 1915, inclosing- copies of corresiiondeuce of the I)ei)artnieut of State with 
the Department of Commerce and the Britisli Embassy in relation to repre- 
sentations made liy the eml)assy to your department to the effect that section 
3109 of the Ivevised Statutes appears to be in conflict with article 1 of the 
convention ciaicerninu' the l)oun(lary waters between tlie I'nited States and 
Canada, concluded January 11. 1909. between the United States and Great 
Britain. You request my opinion upon the same. 

Revised Statutes, section 3109, is as follows: 

'•The master of any foreign vessel, laden or in Indlast. ai-riving, whether by 
sea or otherwise, in the v.iiters of the United States from any foreign territory 
adjacent to the northern, northeastern, or northwestern frontiers of the United 
States, shall rei»ort at the office of any collector or deputy collector of the 
customs, wliich shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter 
such waters; and sucli vessel shall not transfer her cargo or passengers to 
anothei" vessel or proceed farther inland, either to nidade or take in cargo, 
without a special permit from such collector, or deputy collector, issued under 
and in accordance with such general or specific regula.tions as the Secretary 
of the Treasury may. in his discretion, from time to time prescribe. This 
section shall also ai)ply to trade with or through Alaska. For any violation 
of this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeited." 

Article 1 of the convention referred to above is as follows: 

" The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable 
boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of 
connnerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both 
countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either 
country, within its own territ(»ry, not inconsistent ^^■^th such pi'ivilege of free 
navigation and applying equally and without discrinnnation to the inhabitants, 
ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. 

'■ It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this 
same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to 
all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existinir or which may here- 
after be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high conti'acting 
parties may a<loi»t rules and regulati(nis governing the use of such canals within 
its own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all surh rides 
and regulations and all tolls charged shall ai^ply alike to the subjects or citi- 
zens of the high contracting i)arties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both 
of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality 
in the use thereof." 

It will be seen that section 3109 of the Bevised Statutes imposes certain 
resti'ictions upon the masters of foreign vessels v.ith respect to the duty to 
report to the collector of customs .and the right to tra.nsfer cargo o\- passengers, 
or to proceed farther inland, which are not inu.^osed upon the masters of 
domestic ships. The treaty provides that tlie navigati(»n of boundary waters 
between the \\\o countries for purposes of commerce shall be free and open, 
subject <mly to such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with the privilege 
of free navigation, as shall apply equally and without discrimination to the 
inhabitants, shii)S, vessels, and boats of both countries. In other words, such 
navigation shall not l)e subject to laws and regulations which are discrimina- 
tory. There is, therefore, in my opinion, a clear contiict between the provisions 
of the treaty and section 3109 of the Revised Statutes, for, since that section 
relates only to foreign vessels, it constitutes a discriminatory law or regulation 
to which, under the terms of the treaty. British ships would no be subject. 

It is well settled by the decisi<ms of the United States Supreme Court that 
treaty provisions, which are self-executing in the sense that they require uo 
additional legislation to make them effective, are equivalent to and of like 
obligation with an act of Congress. The Constitution declares that both shall 
be the supreme law of the land and both are equally binding upon the courts. 
Foster v. Neilson (1829) (2 Pet., 253, 314) ; The Cherokee Tobacco (1870) (11 
Wall.. 616, 621) : Cheong Heong r. United States (1884) (112 V. S., 536. 539) ; 



AMEKICAI^r-CANADIAlS^ FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 377 

Head Monev cases (18S4) (112 U. S.. 580. 599) : Whitney r. Robertson (1888) 
(124 U. S.. 190, 194). 

Where such a treaty is in conttit-t Avith an act of C'ongress. that whicli is 
later In da.te will control. A treaty may supersede or abrogate a prior act of 
Congress, and an act of Congress similarly may abrogate or supersede a prior 
treaty. Foster r. Xeilson, supra ; The Cherokee Tobacoo, supra ; Whitney v. 
Robei-tson. supra: Hea.d Monev cases, supra; Botiller v. Domiuguez (1889) 
(130 U. S.. 238. 247) : The Chinese Exclusion case (1889) (130 U. S.. 581, 600) : 
Horner v. United States (1892) (143 U. S.. 570. 578) : United States v. Old 
Settlers (1893) (148 U. S.. 427. 468) : Fong Tue Ting v. United States (1893) 
(149 U. S.. 698. 720) : Lem Moon Sing r. United States (1895) (158 U. S., 538, 
549) : Wong Wing r. United States (1896) (163 U. S., 228, 230) ; Thomas v. 
Cav (1898) (169 I'. S.. 2(54, 271) : Stephens v. Cherokee Nation (1899) (174 
U. 'S.. 445. 483. 484) : La Abra IVIining Co. v. United States (1899) (175 U. S., 
423. 460); De Lima r. Kidwell (1901) (182 U. S.. 1, 195) ; United States v. 
Lee Yen Tai (1902) (185 U. S.. 213. 220. 221) ; Hi.io v. United States (1904) 
(194 U. S., 315. 324) ; Sanchez i: United States (1910) (216 U. S., 167, 175-176). 

Article 1 of the treaty of January 11. 1909. confers i-ights upon the inhabit- 
ants and ships of the contracting nations by force of its own provisions which 
require no legislation to make them effective, and is clearly self-executing 
within the meaning of the authorities above cited. In Johnson v. Browne (205 
U. S.. 309. 321) it was said: 

"Repeals by implication are never favored, and a later treaty will not be 
regarded as repealing an earlier statute by implication, unless the two are ab- 
solutely inconi])atible and the statute can not be enforced without antagonizing 
the treaty.'" 

In the present instance section 3109 of the Revised Statutes is in my opinion 
so clearly incompatible with the provisions of the later treaty that it must be 
regarded as superseded by the latter in so far as It is inconsistent therewith. 
It is. therefore, in my opinion, the duty of the officials, whose function it is 
to administei- the laws and regulations relating to commerce upon the Great 
Lakes, to fulfill, by proper administrative action, the requirements of the treaty 
and it is not necessary that the statute should be expressly repealed. .As 
already pointed out. a treaty made under the authority of the United States 
is equally with an act of Congress the supreme law of the land and is Irinding 
upon the administi-ative officers of the Government as well as upon the courts. 

As to the duties of the master of a foreign ship under Revised Statutes, 
section 2774. referred to in the correspondence from the Department of Com- 
merce. I express no ojunion. as the question does not appear to be now involved. 
Respectfully. 

T. AY. Gregory. Attorney General. 



378 



AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 






s^ 



^ 



O" 



& 






CD :0 CO ^H 



'C O N O IM 



O CO y^ "O 
X-^ --^ ^ lO 

CO :o CD t^ 



OS —( 

'2cD''t»~ 



Q-*c 



«- 05 CD 






^-t ^o t^ CD 



3 t^ lO 

1 cor^ 

00 00 cq -* 

^ a: lO CO 

Tco'im'" 



03 CO t^ GO 



X 



S-* CO 

ccoo 
C» CO-CO- 



iO »-0 --0 -^ 
i-H lO (M 1-* 
!>■ I>- lO -rt^ 



'S 'to'io" 






o oo 

•S C0Ci0 



O CD CR CO 

r-i CO "Tti 00 

o"im" 



CN) .— I coo 



fO "O i-H 00 



as rH -r --1 c^ cc o 
(M t^ r^ Oi OG r-« 00 
a: O o: iQ CD ■^ O: 



O rH (M CD CO CO l^ 
(M CD -jZ> lO 00 -^ 1^ 
CO CO »0 O CD (N iC 



CD ■^ C5 X lO at I-- 

-:r to r-i CD .-H t^ CD 
O to C>a ro .— I »0 CO 

crorcr''co'"i 
QC' io ^ X cq 



J .^ CC CD 1— 



C<I 



(M „ 00 CO 



> '^ CO I-~ T" CO .— I 

< ^ o CD Trr- CD 



^ (M .-H CN CD CT> »0 



C^ »0 Lti Ol CO CI o- 
■X CO lO CI X or, 03 
CO ■* Oi CO o w ■^ 

t •>." :o' t C^ -v-T x" ^"r-"^ 

r^ .-H .— I Ol ''^ -X: CD , 

CI o X ca iM 1-^ 'TO I 

** cD^iO'-^'o't-'" 



CD 05 O lO O 
X i-Ht^CDO 



Oi tN. -^ oo cs 



l"» .-» CO cs o 

X O -t* Oi O 
O --I c^ t^ o 



CO »0 X CD O 



coox ^^^-- 



o CD 'rt^ c<i .-H 

iQ IC CO '^ CN 



CO CO CO lO CO 

^4 X 1-H CD.-H 



■ COt-tC 



iC lO CD CO Oi 

_ t-t C5 lO l>- Tj^ 

• CD lO X 'O X TP 

cm" c^cizTio I--'' .-TcT 

O CO CO CO o »o O 
X i-O 1-H Oi 00 CO -r 

co'csT^^fM'" 



(^ Oi Cn lO (^ Tf t~- 
t- (M CO O O CD 1-1 



lO CO Ci CD O i-H lO 
CO r- lO T-l 1— ( !>• (M 

O .-H T?i M o X (M 



c: C5 'CD X 'X «— I -^ 
^ CO OJ ,-H [^ 05 X 
(M CO CO CD --D (M CO 

.-rco"(N"(N c<r 



CO lO CO iC) CI O (M 

X) Tf Oi X CD CO o 
05 O Ol O »0 r- CD 



(M (M t-- CO I-- r^ t-H 

X Tf "* 1— I r^ (M (M 



lO CI >— ( C<J t— t O CO 
O C- .— I -rfi r- lO c^ 

.— I C5 X 0:1 CO r-H c; 



.-1 CO (M lO O CO iC 
i>- r- .— f 03 X CTj CD 

Ci X CO O CD (M CO 



CD T t^ ""O lO ■* CO 
CD O O tM O Tf "O 
(M .-H t^ X o:> CO O 



05 Ci CD ^H o: X O 
,— < Oi' 10 t^ <M CO CO 

X r^ O r-i CO »o „ 



^ rt C^ t^Oi 
cox OI>- »-< 

-rt* CD (M OCO 



«0 I>- CO CD O 
-^ CO 1-1 CO CD 

:o CO t^ X X 



01 01 X lO CO 



•-1 CO CM »0 OS 
Oi CO XdO 



■rj* CO "^ X i-H 
CO 10 O CO o 

t^ co^ >o o 



CD cox CO i-H 
OOCOOCM 
CD O lO t^ CM 



'Tt* t^ COOCD 
O cox Tt^ X 

cTi-TccT'^x*" 



lO O .— I CO O) 
Tt< O X .-IX 

■^Tj^tCorTco^ 

00 CD CD CD X 
CO .-< rH iO CD 



^ 



ecu o 



•— 5i o c3 : 



o^ >.. 



J 9 ce^ o 
*-^ S S i^ — 



1=1 !r 

S,5 



° cf o o a 3 S c s 



-'OS 






AMEBIC AN-CANADIAIs^ FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 



379 



(N CD -^i-Hl^- 
'^OCN CD O 

to 00 CO o :D' 
cocTci" 



t^ o c^ yu CO 

-* CN Oi C^ t-^ 
C^ OCO OOO 



O Ci 'X ;C CD 
CM t>- lO t^ O 

?0l>- CD COCD 



T-) C^ i-H i-H CO 



Tfi CC i-H -*«C0 

O •-< r^ -^ i-o 

*-tTH0CCO(M 

co'cd'-^i-TczT 

lOO '^t^ CO (N 
lO »-0 CD t^ CS 



O O t^ --H iC 
C>J 't^ W 005 
uo iO C^ X) CO 

ro'i-TcTco'io'" 

CO CO lO 1-H 'I** 
•-H -^ lO CO 00 



?(N, 



1-H fOi-t t^ CO 

r^ t^ o t-^ i>- 

CD^ i-H t^ CO 

O CO iO OC' I- 
COCO30 Oi '^ 

ofcoi-T 



00 CN CO'^'iM 
CO CD CO 00 CO 



OC CD CO »0 00 
i-H 1-1 'Tjl W CO 



'Qi Tt4 O (N CO 



00 Oi 05 *0 00 
CO 00 CO CO 00 
cocoes CO-* 

cD"Lo"or-!^T-r 

CO Lo t^ 65 1^ 



03 CO »0 CO CO 
CS (M !M t^ -^ 

00 CO ""i^ 00 CO 



Tf* CO Tt^ COCO 
CD IC 00 O Ol 
t^ O CO Ol CD 



O O OS CO 00 
*-t O OS 1-H CO 



Cs »o ir^ Tf CO 
r- CO CO 1-H CO 

T?^^ -t^OS CO 



C0(MO00(N 
OS LOCO Tf CD 
C^ t^ lOOO t- 



O0S»0 CM CO 
to Oi Tt^ t^ CO 



lO LO tN i-H t-* 



r- I 



o 2 
' o a 



; a 






a'3 S 



43 3- 
O CTtS 



o B ? 

.sis 

tr. ©IS 
So O 






'd o 'P 

t3 8 >■ 

g a> [I, 



f p cj 
do" 

O o f-' 



o ^ 

? o , 

r^ S " 



380 



AMEEICAN-CANADJAiSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 



EXHIBIT W. 

Department of Commerce, 

BtiRE.\u OF Fisheries, 
Wafihington, February 23, 19JS. 
Dear Mr. Secretary : As beurinj; on the relative cost of outfitting fistiing 
vessels in Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, you may be interested In the follow- 
ing figures furnished b.y the Gorton-Pe^y Fisheries Co. showing the cost of cer- 
tain staple articles for vessels engaged in the dory haud-line fishery — one out 
of (Gloucester and the other out of Lunenberg — in the spring of 1917 : 





Gloucester. 


Lunenberg. 




Gloucester. 


Lunenberg 


Flour barrel. . 

Beef barrel.. 

Pork barrel.. 

Sugar pound. . 

Butter pound. . 

Potatoes bushel . . 

Turnips bushel . . 


$11. 00 

26.50 

35.00 

■ . 08-1- 

.20 

2.75 

1.60 


.110. 25 

27.00 

37. 00 

.09 

.42 

1.40 

.60 


Raisins pound. . 

Coffee pound . . 

Tea pound.. 

Molasses gallon. . 

Lard pound . . 

Eggs dozen.. 


$0. 12 
.20 
.35 
.46 
.17 
.35 


$0.12 
.32 
.43 
.75 
.31 
.35 



Very truly, .voiirs, 



Flon. William C. Redfield, 

Sec7-et(irii of Citniiiierce. 



H. M. Smith. 

Co))i)iiis.si<)iicr. 



EXHIBIT X. 



The Secret .\KY of CoiiiiEUCE : 

Acting under instructions from me, IMi 
at Gloucester, has recently made a canv; 
purpose of determining the nationality 
captains and owners of the vessels and 
tion for year 1917. Owing to the absenc 
ter of the crews, the information is not 
sufficiently so for all practical purposes 
vass for tlie 132 vessels composing the (> 



Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
WashiiKjfon, April 3, 191S. 

H. F. P>r()wii, local agent of the bureau 
iss of the Gloucester fishing fleet for the 
of the crews. He has interviewed the 
has obtained the best possible informa- 
e of records and the changeable charac- 
absolutely correct, but is believed to be 
Following are the results of his caiir 
(loucester fleet in 1917 : 



American 

Canadian 

Newfoundland 

Portuguese 

Scandinavian _ 

French 

Italian 



7.14 

S97 

237 

167 

17 

14 

8 



Irish __ 

Finn 

Spanish 
Russian 
German 



Total 2, 095 



It is interesting to note that on each of 15 of the vessels there was but one 
American and on each of S of the vessels there were only two Americans. 

H. INI. vSmith, Cominissioner. 



EXHIBIT Y. 



B.AY OF FUNDY CLOSED TO SHAl) I'lSHING. 

The following order in council passed by the Canadian Government on Feb- 
ruary 28, 1918, proclaims a closed season for shad in the Bay of Fundy until 
February 28, 1922: 

"That shad fishing in the Bay. of Fundy waters and in all waters tributary 
thereto is prohibited from the 1st of March, 1918, until the last of Febru- 
arv, 1922." 



AMERICAN-CANADIA]Sr EISHEEIES CONFEEEFCE. 381 

EXHIBIT AA. 

bxjeeau of navigation, general letter no. 17i, supplemental (no. 2). 

March 2.5, 1918. 
To coUfctor.s of ciD^foiiis (tiicl others concerned: 

Referring to general letter No. 174 regarding the use in the American fislieries 
of Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting with the 
United States, you are advised that the provisions of that general letter apply 
to vessels on the Great Lakes as well as those on the ocean, and apply also to 
all lakes and rivers on the Canadian boundary of the United States. 
Respectfully, 

Willia]\i C. Reufield, i<vcrelnrv. 



EXHIBIT BB. 



TREATY OF 1S18. HETWEEN XTNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. ARTICLE I OF 
WHICH RELATES TO THE FISHERIES. 

Article I. — Fisheries. 

AVhereas dilferences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United 
States for the inhaliitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, 
bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, 
it is agreed between the high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the 
said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of His 
Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on thiit part of the 
southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau 
Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said 
Cape Ray to the (^)uirpon Islands on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and 
also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly on the soutliern 
coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of Belleisle and thence 
northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without i»rejudice, however, to any 
of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company : And that the American 
fishermen shall also have liberty forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the 
unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks, of the southern part of the coast of New- 
foundland hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador ; Init so .soon as 
the same, or any jiortion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the 
fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agree- 
ment for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the 
ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever, any liberty lieretofore 
enjoyed or claimed l\v the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on, 
or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of 
His Britannic INIajesty's dominions in America not included within the above- 
mentioned limits ; Pi'ovided however, that the American fishermen shall be ad- 
nntted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repair- 
ing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no 
other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may 
be necessary to prevent their taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any 
other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. 



P]XHIBIT CC. 
Monus Vivendi. 



Established pending ratification of the treaty of 1888 between the United 
States and Great Britain (which treaty, however, was not ratified by the 
Senate of the Uniteil States) ; renewed annually foi- the past 30 years by 
orders in council passed by the Government of Canada. 

1. For a period not exceeding two years from the present date the privilege 
of entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada and of New- 
foundland shall be granted to United States fishing vessels by annual licenses 
at a fee of $1.50 per ton, for the following purposes : 



382 AAIElUCAN-CAl!fADIAX ITISHEKIES CONJj'EEENCE. 

The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits ; 
Transshipment of catch and sliipping of crews. 

2. If during- the continuance of this arrangement the United States shoidd 
remove the duties on tish, fish oil, whale and seal oil (and their coverings, 
packages, &c. ). the said licenses shall be issued free of charge. 

3. United States fishing vessels entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic 
coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland for any of the four purposes mentioned 
in Article I of tlie Convention of October 20, 1818, and not remaining therein 
more than twenty-four hours, shall not be required to enter or clear at the 
customhouse, providing that they do not communicate with the shore. 

4. Forfeiture to lie exacted only for the offences of fishing or preparing to 
fish in territorial waters. 

f). This arrangement to take elTect as soon as tlie uec-essary mcasurt-s can 
be completed l)y the colonial authoritie.s. 



INDEX 



Accidenr iii.sui-auce. 38. 
Act of 1789. United States laws. V2. 
Act of 1793. United States law-.s. 11, 12. 
Act of 1898. United States laws. 43. -57. 58. 
Act of 1903. United States laws. 43. 
Alaska : 

Canadian tishiu,ir vessels at ports «f. 108-109. 182, 216. 330. 
Fishins vessels entering and clearing- from ports of. IS. 20. 
Hearings of conference in. 60. 283. 286. 365. 
Navigation laws of United States apply to. 21-23. 
Aliens in crews of American fishing vessels, 17. 120-121. 123-124. 200. 214, 

219. 234-235. 
Alien tonnage tax. 13. 
American-Canadian fisheries conference : 
American delegation, 7. 197. 292. 
Api)ointment of. 7. 197. 291. 
Canadian delegation. 7, 197. 292. 
Hearincs of. in United States and Canada, 5-6, 7, 51. 60-62. 65, 111-112. 

183. 188. 192. 197-198. 283. 286, 292, 293. 313-314. 321. .365. 
Origin, purpose, and scope. 7. 52. 6(»-66. 85. 103. 111. 160, 192-194, 197 199, 

283. 291, 338, 365, 
Program. 7-8. 61. 101-102. 111. 112. 1.S3. LS-S. 197-198. 292-293. 307, 

313-314. 321. 365. 
Propositions to he considered, 61-66, 194. 
Report, to respective Governments, 7. 183, 283, 307, 365, 
Transmitting report of hearings to committee of Congress, .5-6, 
American hoys, training as fishermen, 2.35. 
.American citizens : 

As masters and ofiicers of American fishing vessels, lijo. 141-142, 
Niimher in crevrs of American fishln.ir vessels, 120. 123-124. 200. 234-235. 
American fishins: vessels : 
Age of. 36. 307. 342. 

Bait, outfits. an<l supplies, i.urchase of. in Canada. 79. 91. 96. 236, 238, .3<;»0. 
303-304, 317. 335. 
Sec fil.so Supplies. 
Bases of fishing operations. 210. 211. 

Clearance from and entrv to Canadian ports to and from fishinir irrounds. 
.5-6, 8-9. 54. 62. 69-71, 91. 194. 312-313. 329. 351-3.52. 

Custom on Atlantic coast. 24, 66, 81. 214, 221, 226. 291. 302-303. 316. .336, 
Custom on Pacific coast, 24, 25, 52, 65-66, 70. 216, 
Construction of. See Construction of vessels. 
Cost of. ^'ee Cost. 
Crews of (.see ff?-so Crews) — 

Aliens and citizens among, 120, 12^-124, 200, 234-235. 
As recruits for United States navv and merchant marine. 16. 17. 
Difficulty in ohtaining. 124-127. 221-222, 22.S-229. 231. 
Food, higher class than Canadians, 297-298. 
Training of American hoys for. 235. 
Wages of. See Wages. 
Entry. See Clearance, etc., above. 

Effect of suspension of Canadian modus vivendi on. 219. 
Insurance, rates of, 280-281. 303. 
Ketchikan, buying bait, supplies, etc.. at. 10ft. 
Licenses. <S'ee Licenses. 
Life of. 36. 307. 342. 

383 



384 nn)EX. 

AmeriCiin tishing vessels — Contiuued. 
Lobster fishins; — 

Off Canadian coast, 7, 9. 53. 57, 119, 128-129. 135-136. 139. 141-143, 158. 

194, 196, 291. 
See also Lobster lisbiug. 
Masters, officers, citizenship of, 28-31, 123, 142, 239, 241. 
Nmnber of calling at Canadian ports (1915-16), also number of calls, 225. 
Modus Vivendi, establishment of, by Canada ; privileges under ; extension to 

all American vessels. See Modus vivendi, Canadian. 
Operating expenses of, 217-218, 317-318. 
See also Costs ; Operating expenses. 
Order in council, March 8, 1918, granting privileges in Canadian ports. 5-6. 
Places where built, 28-249. 

See Construction. 
Ports and markets of Canada, opening ot to, 5-6, 9, 62, 81-84, 96, 102, 194, 

201. 206, 211, 223-224. 229-230. 232. 238, 247, 252, 263, 300, 316, 385-336. 
Prince Rupert, iiuying liait. supplies, etc.. 8, 109-110, 182, 216. 
Sale of, to subjects of other nations, 26-27, 49, 277, 357-358, 363. 
Sale of tish in Canadian ports. Sec Ports and markets of Canada, etc., 

above. 
Seamen's act. United States, applicaldlity of, to, 27, 30, 32, 331-332. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of Tnited States, applicability to, 27-38, 340. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, applicability to. 357-364. 
Tonnage tax. United States, not subject to, 26. 
Transfer of, to Canadian registry, 2(>-27, 35, 38, 49. 
Treatv of 1818, rights u)ider. S. 51. 5:'>. SO. 90-92. 104. 195. 219. 226. 244. 274- 

275," 282-283, 290-291. 
Treaty of 1888 (not ratified bv Congress) ; modus vivendi by Canada pend- 
ing "ratification of, 51-52, 92. 195, 274, 277-278, 290-291. 

See also Boston fisheries; dMoucester fishing fleet; Maine fishing fleet; 
Trawlers. 
American registry : 

Canadian and other foreign vessels taking out, 35, 38, 72-73, 98-99, 106. 
Sale or transfer of vessels under, 26, 27, 49, 277, 357-358, 363. 
Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, relative importance of, 48, 49. 
Bait. See Supplies. 
Banking fleet, 266, 275, 278, 280. 
Banks. See Fishing grounds. 
Bases of fishing operations, American fieet, 211. 
Berths on fishing vessels, 33. 331. 
Bill of health, 21, 26. 
Boilers of vessels, 28. 34-36. 357-363. 
Bond, transshipment of fish in. througli Canada. 9. 96. 109. 121-122, 211, 252, 

314, 357. 
Boneless-fish industry. 268. 
Boothbay. Me., lobster hatchery, 95, 134. 
Booth Fisheries Co., 169, 220-221. 
Boston Chamber of Commerce, 60, 186. 
Boston Fisheries, 176. 

Cons(tlidation of dealers, 177. 
Facilities of wharf, 177, 179, 183. 
Number of persons in, 120. 
Numbers of trawlers. 155-156, 177. 
Use of trav.lers by United States Navy, 78, 155. 
Boundary waters. 46. 
Bounties to American fishermen, 12, 25. 
Bounties to Canadian fishermen, 8, 26. 62-63, 147, 215-216. 
Bounties on ship construction, Newfoundland, 214-215. 
British Navy, 179-180. 

British registry, sale and transfer of vessels of. 112. 
British shipbuilders, competition Mith American, 178-179, 208. 
British trawlers in American fisheries: 

In this war, 98. 104-105, 148-149, 179-181, 193, 243, 311. 
Number of, 148. 

Taking out Canadian registry, 98, 105. 
Regulation of in North Sea, 230-231. 

See also British registry; Canadian registry; Great Britain fishing fleet; 
Great Britain in war. 



iisTDEX, 385 

Bnretui of Fif^lieries, United States, achievenients of. 154. 163. 173. 207-209, 

242, 319, 322. 
Califoi-ni:i Director of Marliets : 

In re fish waste as cliicl^en food, 174. 273. 
See also Cliiclien food ; Fisli waste, 
f'anada and United States in the war, 60. 65. 112. 192-195. 202, 212-213, 245, 

261-263, 279. 
Canadian fish imported into United States, quantity of, 19, 20, 206, 354. 
Canadian fishing vessels: 
Age of. 295, 305. 342. 

Alaslai, entering ports of, 108-109, 182. 216. 330. 
Bait, supplies, outfits; purchase of, in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 

62, 251, 297, 29^300. 304, 306. 
Changin;;- character of. to trading vessels, 15, 17-18, 64, 100. 103, 105, 125, 

196, 204. 291. 315, 329. 347. 
Clearance from and entrv to United States ports to and from fishing 
grounds. 5-6, 8-9, 11-20, 26. 52, 54, 62-67. 69-73. 76, 77. 97, 103, 105, 194. 
312-313, 329. 347-348, 352. 

Custom on Atlantic coast. 21-23. 42-43, 47, 65, 66, 97, 99-100, 108, 110, 
123-126, 149, 196, 204, 216, 226-228, 230, 232, 239-241, 244, 251-252, 
257, 261, 263, 276. 291-292, 301-302. 334-315, 336, 354. 
Custom of on Pacific coast, 20-26, 39-43, 46-48, 65, 66, 70, 97, 107-110, 

125. 182, 216. 227. 276. 292, 33(3-331. 
Ordei-s February 20 and March 2o. 1918, granting privilege during war, 5. 
Penalty for departing without, 12-14. 
Steam trawlers, not schooners, would benefit. 73. 
War measure, as, 76-77, 198, 279, 353. 
Construction of. -See Construction of vessels. 
Cost of. See Costs. 
Cre\^'S — 

Number of. 299. 
Plentiful. 301-302. 
Wages of. See Crews. 
Entry. .See Clearance (above). 
Fees for entrv to United States ports. 21. 
Insurance of, rates for, 280-281, 303. 
Ivetchikan. buving bait, supplies, etc, 109. 
Life of. 295. 303, 305, 342. 

Navigation laws of United States applicable to, 11-27, 64-66, 291, 296. 
Operating expenses of. 317-318. 

See Cost ; Operating expenses. 
Orders February 20 and March 25, 1918, granting privileges in American 

ports. 5. 
Ports and markets of United States, opening of, 5-6. 9, 12, 20, 62, 97, 99-100. 
102. 105, 110, 194, 206, 210, 228-230. 239, 252, 257, 263, 267-268, 276, 283, 
301, 316. 
Prince Rupert, buying bait, supplies, etc.. 109-119. 

See also Prince Rupert. 
Sale to citizens of United States or other nations, 358. 
Sale of fish in United States ports. See Ports and markets of United 

States, etc.. above. 
Seamen's act. United States, applicability of, 27, 30. 32, 331-332. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of United States. 27-38, 340. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, 31, 36. 340, 357-364. 
Tonnage tax. United tSates, subject to. 26. 
Taking out American registry, 35, 38, 98-99. 
Transferring to trading vessel. 15. 17-18. 64, 100, 103. 125, 196. 204, 291, 

315, 329, 347. 
United States law preventing engaging in fisheries, 11-27. 
Canadian harbors and waters : 

Jurisdiction and control of, 234. 

United States boats dressing fish in, 204-205, 233-234, 275, 316-317. 
Canadian law relating to steam trawlers, 85-93. 
Canadian modus vivendi. See Modus vivendi. Canadian. 
Canadian port charges, 9. 

51950—18 25 



386 INDEX. 

Canadian registry : 

American vessels taking out, 26-27, 35, 38, 49. 
Canadian fishing vessels taking out, 18, 52, 64, 291. 
Sale of vessels of, to other nations, 358. 
Canned fish and lobster industry. 44. 4.1, 93, 154, 182-183, 257, 321-322, 330, 339, 

355. 
Captains. See Officers. 

Cars, refrigerating, 157. 167. 169-170, 186-187. 220. 
Cashes Bank, 129, 136. 
Cattle-food industry, 174. 175, 181, 269. 

See Fish waste. 
Clieaper fish. 71, 73, 98, 106. 110. 316. 

See also Expansion of American market ; Food supply ; Prices for fish. 
Chicken-food industry. 174. 175, 181, 269-273. 

See Fish waste. 
Citizenship, officers and crews of American vessels. 120. 123-124. 141-142. 200, 

2.34-235. 
Clam meal us chicken food, 175. 

See also Chicken food ; Fi.sh waste. 
Classification societies, 28. 

Cleaning fish in Canadian waters, 204-205, 233-234, 275, 316-317. 
Clearance and entry : 

American fishing vessels to and from Canadian ports to fishing groun<ls 
and return, ,5-6. 8. 9. 54. 62, 66, 69-71, 91, 194. 312-313, 329. .351-3.52. 
Custom on Atlantic coast, 24, 66, 81, 214, 221, 229, 291. 302-316. 
Custom on Pacific coast, 24, 25. 52, 65-66, 70, 216. 

Order in Council, March 8. 1918. granting privileges in Canadian 
ports, 5-6. 
Canadian fishing vessels to and from Llnited States ports to fishing 
grounds and return, 5-6. 8-9. 11-20, 26, 52, .54, 62-67. 69-73. 7(5-77. 97. 
103, 105, 104, 312-313, 329, 347-348, 352. 
Custom on Atlantic coast, 21-23, 42-43, 47. 65-66, 97. 99-100. 108, 110, 
123-126. 149, 196, 204, 216. 226-228, 230, 232. 239-241. 244. 251-252. 
257. 261, 263. 276. 291-292. 301-302, 314-315. 336. 3.54. 
Custom OH Pacific coast, 20-26. 39-13. 46-48. 6.V66. 70. 97. 107-110. 
125, 182. 216, 227, 276. 292, .8-30-331. 

Orders. February 20 and ]\[arch 25. 191S. granting iirivileges dur- 
ing war. 5. 
Penalty for departing from United States ports without clear- 
ance, 12-14. 
Practice of in Canadian ports, 18. 
Steam trawlers, not schooners, would benefit, 73. 
War measure, as, 76, 77. 198, 279. 353. 
Clintonia, 256, 308. 
Coal, cost of, 77, 82. 239, 282. 
Coasting trade, 11. 14. 20, 106-107, 112, 313. 
Cod-fish industry, 184, 207, 243, 267. 311. 316, 354. 
Cod-oil industry, 266-267. 
Cold-storage law in United States, 165. 
Cold-storage plants: 
At Ketchikan, 111. 
At Prince Rupert, 111, 170, 171, 182. 
Subsidy to Canadian, 111, 171. 
Collectors of customs of United States: 

Duties relating to navigation laws. 12, 13. 21-22. 292. 
Duties relating to Inspection Service, 33. 
Rulings of, 14, 46. 
Committee on Foreign Relations, House of Representatives, oS. 
CoirMiTTEE ON Mekchant Maeine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 

5—6 51 53—54 .56 

Competition in 'Atlantic Fisheries, 81, 84-85, 98, 104, 149, 178, 179, 221-222, 

998--:'29 244 246. 262. 343. 345. 349-350. 352. 
Conference American-Canadian Fisheries. See American-Canadian conference. 



INDEX. 387 

Construction of fishing vessels, 12, 16. 
American — 

Cost of, 105, 256, 267, 295, 307, 308, 318, 342-343. 

Hard lumber (oak, pine) used, 246-249, 255-256, 279, 281, 295, 307, 

308, 342. 
Life of, 36, 307, 342. 

Life of, louiier tliau Caicidi.-ui. -:4s, 254-256, 270-280, 295, 318. 
Places where built, 16, 28, 72, 249. 
Supervision over, 28. 
Canadian — 

Cost of, 249. 256, 295, 308, 311, 318. 342-343. 
Green lumber, 303, 305. 
Life of, 295, 303, 305, 342. 
Places where built, 248, 303, 309, 342. 

Soft lumber used, 246, 248-249, 256, 279, 281, 295, 303, 307. 
Comparison, Clintonia American, Olintonia Canadian, 256, 308. 
Great Britain — 

Competition with Americans, 178-179. 208. 
Cost in, 105. 
Place where built — 

In Canada. 249, 303, 309, 342. 
In United States, 28, 249. 
Consumption of fish, past, present, and future : 

In Canada. 107-108. 110, 193, 208, 240, 242, 309, 316. 

In Great Britain, 106, 110-111. 156, 162, 176-177, 193. 208, 210, 243, .309, 

316, 319. 
In United States 106. 110-111. 124. I.i3, 1.56. 162, 168, 176-177, 193, 207-208, 

240, 242-243, 264, .309, 316, 319. 
See also, Cheaper tish : Demand for flsh ; Educational jjropaganda ; Expan- 
sion of American market for flsli ; Food supply; Production, increase in 
Coquet, case of. 12-14. 19. 23. 
Costs : 

American vessels — 

Construction (^f, 72, l(.t5. 256. 267, 295. 307-308, 318. 342-343. 

Labor ( carpenters, laborers, etc. ) , 72. 

Materials and suppL'es (bait, nets, tub trawls, coal. ice. food, etc.), 71, 

72, 75, 77, 82. 217-218, 236-239. 247. 250. 317-318. 
opera tine expenses. 217-218, 317-318. 
Repairs,'^303. 

Wages of crews, etc. See Wages. 
Canadian vessels — 

Construction of, 72, 249, 256. 295. 308. 311, 318. 342-343. 
Labor (carpenters, laborers, etc.). 72. 

Materials and supplies. 75, 77. 82, 239. 251. 295. 296, 3()(i. 317. 345. 3."')3. 
Operating expenses, 317-318. 
Repairs, 303. 

Wages of crews, etc. See "\A'ages. 
Comparison of American and Canadian vessels — 

Cost of construction 98. 213. 246-247, 254-256, 263, 279. 295, 299. 308. 

311. 318, 342-343, 345. 
Cost of operating expenses. 71. 75. 77. 81-84. 98. 109. 212-213, 232. 2.39. 
246-248, 250-251. 253-256. 2(i3, 303, 317-318. 345. 353. 
Lighthouse vessels, operating expenses of. 84. 

Prices for flsh, 18. 71, 73. 74, 123, 168, 208-209. 211, 222, 235. 242. 257. 2.59, 
267, 268. .302, 312. 315, 320, .339, .347, 351. 354. 
Crews : 

Of American fishing vessels — 

Aliens and citizens, 17. 120-121. 12.3-124, 200. 214, 219, 234-235. 

As recruits for United States Navv and merchant marine, 16, 17. 285. 

Difficulty in obtaining, 124-127, 221-222, 228-229, 231. 

Family expenses high, 71, 72. 

Food, higher class than Canadians, 297-298. 

Number of, 77, 119-120, 299. 

Number in Boston-Gloucester fisheries. 

Share in payment of licenses fees, 71. 

Shipping of in Canadian ports, 6. 



388 INDEX. 

Crews — Continued. 

Of American tisliin.ti' vessel.-! — Coriliniied. 
Training of American boys for, 235. 

Wages of, 82. 120-121, 127, 231. 236-237, 267, 299, 309-33 0, 344. 
Of Canadian fisliing vessels — 
Number. 299. 
Plentiful, 301-309. 

Wages of, 82. 127. 237. 295-290. 301. 305-306, 309-310, 314, 343-344, 353. 
Pensions for, 157. 
Space for, 33, 331-332. 

See also Cost : Wages. 
Cured fish. See Salt-flsh industry. 
Curing fish. See Dressing fish. 
Demand for fish : 
Increase in — 

Canada, 107. 304, 308. 346-347, 351-352. 

lUiited States. 106, 110. 126-127, 149-150. 153-154, 156. 162. 164, 1(58. 
172, 175-178, 184, 185, 193, 207. 211, 220, 222, 229-230, 235, 240, 242- 
243, 252-253, 319, 336. 
Vessels and equipment insutficient to meet. 106, 156, 207, 208. 220, 229. 
See also. Cheaper fish; Consumption of fish; Educational propagan(hi ; 
Equipment; Expansion of American market; Food supply; Pi-oduction. 
increase in. 
Demaml and supply. Sec Consumption of fish ; Demand for fish; Expansion 

of American market ; Supply and demand. 
Diplomacy, open. 60-61, 65, 186, 194, 293. 
Direct clearance. Sec Clearance and entry. 

Distribution. See Fresh fish ; Frozen-fish industry ; Salt-fish industry ; Trans- 
portation, facilities for. 
Dog fish, 154, 216, 320. 323, 338-340. 
Dories, 31. 32, 278, 296, 345, 353, 356. 

Dressing and salting of fish in Canadian harbors by Amei-ican fishing vessels, 0, 
204-205, 233-234. 275, 316-317. 
See oUo Fish waste. 
Duty: 

On fish— 

Into Canada. 9, 62, 83, 90, 104, 206. 

Into Ignited States, 14, 45, 64, 99, 195, 206, 275. 290-291, 329. 
On fishing gear, nets, etc — 
Into Canada, 76, 79, 99. 
Into United States, 76, 79-81. 99. 
- See also, Tariff. 
Earnings Sec Wages. 
" Eat fish." Gospel of, 208, 319. 

Educational propaganda to increase demand for fish, 110, 150, 152-154, 157, 
162-166. 168, 173, 175-176, 178, 181, 184-185. 207-208, 242, 258-260, 808, 812, 
322, 336. 346. 

See also Consumption of fish ; Demand for fish ; Expansion of American 
mai'kets ; Production of fish, increase in. 
Engineers. See Officers. « 

Enrolled vessels, 11, 38. 
Entry. See Clearance and entry. 
Equipment : 

Inspection of, 81, 82, 360. 

Insufficient to meet increased demand for fish, 150, 154-156. 179, 183, 185, 
207, 220, 258. 
European War. See War. 

Expansion of American market for fish, 44, 106, 127, 152-154, 156-157, 162, 171, 
173. 176, 184, 185, 206-208, 242, 253, 260, 316, 319, 322, 336, 352. 

See also Cheaper fish ; Consumption of fish ; Educational propaganda ; 
Pood supply ; Production of fish., increase in. 
Expenses. See Operating expenses ; cost. 

Export of fish from Canada, 19, 20, 206, 265, 308. 811, 846-847, 351-352, 854. 
Export of fish from United States. 160, 161, 165, 206, 241, 264. 
Factors in fish industry, 349-351. 
Fertilizer (fish) industry, 174, 259, 269, 271. 
See Fish waste. 



INDEX. 389 

" Fifty-fifty " arrangement between United States and Canada, 91, 203-204, 209, 
227, 230-231, 233, 245, 252-253. 276, 293-294, 302, 307, 313, 340, 348, 351. 
See also Reciprocal privileges, etc. 
Fish foods, new and unused on market, 154, 163, 185, 207, 242, 323. 

See also Food conservation and cross references thereunder. 
Fish grease and oil industry, cost, supply, and use of: 
Cod oil, 266-267. 
Menhaden oil, 26&-267. 
Fish meal industry, 17-^-175, 269-273. 

See also Fish waste. 
Fish waste, use of: 

Cattle-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269. 
Chicken-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269-273. 
Fertilizer industry. 174, 269, 271. 
Fish-meal industry, 174, 175. 269-273. 
Glue industry, 181, 269-273. 
See also Dressing flsli. 
Fisheries of Gloucester. See Gloucester fisheries. 
Fishermen. See Crews. 

Fishing gear. See Cost ; Duty : Repairs : Supplies. 
Fishing grounds, 64, 210, 211. 
Fishers" act (of Canada), section 63. 32. 
Flounder industry, 173, 207. 

Food Administration of United States, 43, 44, 116. 140, 164, 166. 
Food supply, 5-6, 43, 53-54, 60-61, 65, 67. 141, 148, 149, 164, 193, 212-213, 238, 
258. 268, 278, 29.3-294, 356. 

See also Cheaper fish ; Ccnisumption of rtsh ; Kxpansion of American market . 
for fish ; Fisli foods ; Great Britain in War ; Production of fish ; Whales. 
Foreign Alfairs, Committee of United States House of Representatives, 53. 
Foreign vessels, other than Canadian : 

Navigation laws of United States, applicable to, 46. 

Orders of United States granting privileges in United States ports during 

war, 5. 
Purchase of, to be used in the fisheries, 98-99, 112. 
Taking out American registry, 72, 73. 

See also American registry ; Canadian fishing vessels ; Canadian registry ; 
French fishing vessels ; Great Britain's fishing fieet ; Portuguese fishing 
vessels ; Steamboat-inspection laws. 
Fraser River, salmon fi.sheries of: 

Conservation of, 6-8, 52, 54-55, 62-63, 293. 
Drafting regulations for. 7-8. 55. 
Free fish into United States, 14, 52, 64, 97, 99-100, 102-103, 110, 149, 195-196, 
204, 278, 280, 290, 347. 
See also Dutv ; Tariff. 
Free salt, 12, 25. 
Free trade, 156, 269, 280. 

French fishing vessels coming to United States. 202. 
Fresh fish : 

Distribution of, in (Vinada. 107, 308. 314, 320, 346. 

Distribution of, in United States. 121, 128, 155, 161-164. 169, 185, 220, 257, 

314, 316, 319-320, 322. 
Free into United States, 14, 52. 99-100, 102-103, 110, 149. 195-196, 204, 347 
Imported from Canada, 99-100, 102, 10.5-106, 2.39, 301-302, 314, 316. 347, 351 
Increased sale of, 107. 308, 319. 

See also Demand for fish ; Euucationai. pkofaganda ; Expansion of 
American market : Production of fish, increasp: in. 
Frozen-fish industry, 164-167, 169, 171, 173, 174, 182-183, 186-187, 204, 223, 257, 
2.59, 305, 311, 320-321, 346. 

-See also Fresh fish and cross references ; Dutv. 
Gear, 217-218, 353. 
Gloucester : 

As a fishing port. 199, 202, 204, 210-211, 268, 277-278, 283-285. 

As a manufacturing port, 210, 272. 

Board of Trade of, 203, 283, 285, 286, 341, ,305. 

Master Mariners' Association of, 28.3-284, 

Tributes to, 283-286, 



390 l>v'DEX. 

(Gloucester fisheries : 

Number of owners of vessels iiu 200. 202-203. 

Number of persons eimaged in, 119-121. 

Number of power and sailini; vesseN in, 119. 200, 211-212. 223-224. 228. 238, 
247. 280. 

Number of trawlers in, 224. 

Number of vessels sold and to wliat country, 160. 274, 277. 

Operatin,^" expenses of vessels. iS'cc Operating' expenses; Costs. 

Strike of fishermen 1017, 217. 353. 
Glue (tish) industry. 181, 216, 259, 269-273. 

-Seo Fish waste. 
Gorton-Pew Co., 152, 155, 200. 203. 218-219. 
•• Grand Bankers," 266. 
Gray tish, 154, 216, 320, 323, 338-340. 
Grease. iScc l*Msh tiivase and oil industry. 
(^reat Brilain's tishin.!;- tleet. 148, 149, 230. 

iSt'c also British trawlers, 
(xreat Britain in the war: 

Food supply, 148, 193, 208. 243. 

Shipbuilding, 148. 178-180, 186. 

Trawler lleer, Nee British trawlers. 

S'cc also I'nited States and Canada in rbis \v;ir. 
(Treat Lake hsheries, lii.'. 
" Green "' tisli, 267, 

Grimsby, Euiiland, lishinir porr, 156, 1.59, 243. 
Haddock tleet, 278, 

Halibut, 6, 8. 50, 107-109, 206, 227. 276, 292, 
Halifax award, 147-148, 215, 244-245, 
Havre de (irace, Md,, shad hatcliery. closinu' of, 95. 
Hay-Bond treaty, 280. 
Hides, (See I^eather. 

High cost of living. Sec Cheaper Fish: Consumption ot Fish: Eduoationul 
jtropaganda : Fxtension of Ameru-an ni.-irket : Food: I'rices for tish; Conser- 
vation. 
Hulls, inspection ol', 28, 3(i-37. ,360, 

Inunigralion laws of Ihilted States, ai)i>lying to alien tishermen, 234-235. 
Importation of fish : 

To Canada, 128, 

To United States. 99-100, 102-103, 10.5-106, 110, 128, 148, 167, 168, 206, 210. 
265, 301, 311, 351-352, 354. 
Imports, table showing, 128. 

Increased demand for fish. See Demand for fish. 
Increased i)roductiou of tish. See Proiluction of fish, increase in. 
Inspection of vessels : 

Laws of Canada, 31-32, 36. 340. 357-364, 

Laws of the Uniteil States, 27-38, 340, 

Reinspection. 364. 

United States traveling inspectors, 264, 
Insurance of vessels, difference iu rate on American and Canadian, 280-281. 303. 
Japanese, on American fishing Sessels. 17, 120, 
Ketchikan : 

Bait, supplies, etc.. purchase at, 109. 

Canadian vessHs putting into, m. 108-109, 182, 216, 330, 

Colli storage at, get citations from cold storage. 111, 
Laborers, in shipbuilding, ^cr AVages, 
Lake (^haniplaln fisheries: 

Conditions as to. 5. 8, 53, 62, 112-119, 199, 293, 

Order in council, February 18, 1918, by Canada, 5. 
Lake of the Woods fisheries, 6 , 
Law, Canadian, relating to steam trawlers, 85-93. 
Lay. i8('f Wages : Cost. 
Ijeather. from fish skins. 339-340. 
Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.). Halifax. 74. 
Licensed captains, mates, engineers, 28-29. 
Licensed vessels. 11. 18, 



J^s^DES. 391 

Licenses. Canatliau, umler mudus vivendi. S. 91. 121-122. Wo. 201. 226. 232. 23S. 
246, 261. 269. 276, 279. 34S. 

Annual, to American tisliini; (sail) vessels only. 52. 104. 121-122. 195. 201. 

223, 226, 238. 290. 300. 335. 848. 
Copy of, 225. 
Fee for — 

Abolishnieul of. pernuuiently. proposed. 92. 97. 209. 226. 232. 244. 263. 

275, 300. 302, 317, 336. 
Fisliermeu"s share in payment of. 71. 
Heduction of, suggested. 62, 69-71, 75, 76. 79. 90-91. 96. 194, 204. 209. 

226. 228, 232. 238-239, 244, 261. 274-275, 300. 302. 317. 336, 348. 
lieturn of, under order in council. March 8, 1918, 6. 
Tot;!l amount paid annuall.v, 69-70. 
^^■aiver of. during- war, 6. 
I'ower boats not included in license privileges. 52. 63. 64. 196. 220. 223. 22(3- 

228. 252, 290. 3<»0. 313. 317. 349. 
I'rivileges — 

(Jrauted under, 51-52. 63, 90. 121-123. 195. 201. 211. 221. 223-226. 228. 

2.32. 246. 2.52, 290-291, 300, 335, 348. 
Order in council exteniliug. during war, 6. 
Ket^purement of. \\aived during war. 6. 
:Special privileges granted in certain cases. 19. 81. 88-90. 122-123. 282-283. 

313. 316, 3-34. 
Suggested issuance on pernuuient basis to all American vessels : also reduc- 
tion of fee. 8. 9, 62-64, 67. 69-71. 7.5-76. 79. 90. 96. 194. 204. 232, 239. 244. 
2.52. 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 336. 348. 
Sec (il'io Ajckkuax Fishing Vessels. 
Lobster tishing : 

Canadian coast — 

American well smacks, practice of, 6, 7, 9, 53, 57, 62, 65. 67-68, 119. 

128-129. 13.5-136. 139, 141-143, 158, 194, 196, 291. 
Bill in Congress to prohibit practice. 6, 7, 27. 40-41. .53. 56, -57, 67, 136, 

139-140. 143, 158. 291, 348. 
Closed seasons for, 62, 65, 119, 196, 291, 337-338. 
Cost of operating smacks, 129, 139, 142. 
Nationality of crews, 57, 129. 142-143. 

Protection of industry, 52, 53, 65, 93-94. 119, 131. 196-197. 204. 291. 321, 
330, 332-334. 337-338, 355. 
Maine and other New England coasts — 
Closed seasons for. 338. 
Federal and State laws to regulate. 69. 93, 95. 129-140. 143. 144. 1.58. 

321. 330, 334. 
Protection of industry, 67, 68, 93-95, 129-135, 137-140, 143-146, 204, 
334. 338. 
Maxiumm and minimum sizes. 68. 69. 93-94. 130-135. 137-139, 144. 146. 

321-322. 330, 332-334, 355. 
Newfoundland law, 146. 

Propagatu.n of, 95. 133, 134, 138. 144. 146. 321-322. 333. 
Size of ring in trap, 136-137, 144-145. 
Wa.ges of lobster tishermen. 140. 
Lumber, kinds of. *S'cc Construction of ships. 

Luueuberg. tishing industry of. 222. 229. 2.54. 295-306. 308. 310. 331-332. 
Machinery, inspection of. 31, 33-36. 340. 357. 360. 362. 
Mail-order tish industry, 241-242. 
Maine fishing fleet, number of. 264. 
Manifests, 42, 43. 

Marine insurance. See Insurance of vessels. 
Markets : 

Of Canada, opening of, to American fishing vessels. -5-6, 9, 62, 81-84, 96, 102, 
194, 201. 206. 211. 223-224. 229-230, 232. 238. 247. 252. 263. 300. 316, 
385-336. 
Of United States, opening of, to Canadian fishing vessels. .5-6, 9. 12, 20, 62, 
97. 99-100. 102. 105. 110, 194. 206. 210. 228-230. 239, 252. 257. 263. 267-268. 
276, 283, 301, 316. 
See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fish brought into United States 
markets : Canadian fishing vessels ; Consumption of fish : Expansion of 
American markets. 



392 iKDEX. 

Masters of American vessels, citizenship of, 123, 142, 241. 
Mates, t^ce (^dicers. 
Meat supply : 

Relation of, to tishiuti- trade. 44, 110, 153, 162, 222, 229. 235, 242-243, 264, 

294, 31(i, 319, 347. 
Shortage of, 44, 153, 222, 229, 235, 238. 240, 242-243, 264, 294, 316, 319, 347. 
Transportation facilities for, 220-221. 
Sec also Refrijieratinft' cars. 
■Menhaden oil indnslr.v, 266-267. 

]\Ierchant marine, sonrce from which recrnited. 16. 17, 285. 
iMerchant Marine and EMsheries, connnittee of Tniled State House of Ue[)re- 

sentatives, 5-(), 51, 53-54, 56. 
INIodus Vivendi, Canadian : 

Applicahle to American lishinii' (sail) vessels only, 52, 63, 64, 104, 121-122, 

195. 201, 223, 226, 238, 290. 300, 335, ;54S. 
Copy of — (Exhihit 00), 384. 

Establishment of, in 1888 and renewed annually, 51-52, 63-64, 80, 92, 195. 
Extension of (proposed), on permanent basis to all American tishinti ves- 
sels, 8, 62-()4, 67, 69-71, 75, 76, 79. 90, 96, 103-105, 194, 204, 232, 239, 
244, 252, 302, 312, 313, 317, 336, 348, 354. 
Fees under. Sec lacenses, below. 

Licen.ses under. 8, 91, 121-122, 195, 201, 226, 232, 238. 246, 2(51, 269. 276, 279, 
348. 

Annrntl, to Aniei-ican fishinir (sail) vessels only. 52, (i3-()4, 104, 121- 

122, 195, 201, 223, 226, 238. 290, 300, 335, 34S. 
Oopy of, 225. 
Fee foi' — 

Abolishment of. permanently pr<)i)ose(l. 92, 97, 209, 226, 232, 244, 

263, 275, 300, 302, 317. 332. 
Fi^^hermen's share in payment of. 71. 

Ueduction of, sumiesti^d, ()2, ()9-71, 75-76, 79, 90-91, 96, 194, 204, 
209, 22(;. 22S, •_>32. 23S-239. 244, 261, 274-275, 300, 302, 317, 336, 
348. 
Return of, under order Mar. 8, 1918, pa,i;e 6. 
Total amount i)aid annually, (59-70. 
AVaiver of, durinu' war, 6. 
Power boats not included in license privil(>L;e, 52. (>3, 64. lOii, 220, 22.">. 

226-228. 252, 290, 300, 313. 317. 349. 
Privileges — 

Granted under, 51-52, 63, 90. 121-123, 195. 2(n. 211. 221. 223-226, 

228, 232, 246, 252, 290-291, 300, 335, 348. 
Order extendin.ii', (hiring war, 6. 
Special orivile,u;>s sivjuited in certain ''ases. 19, 81, 88-90. 122-123, 282- 

283, 313, 316, 354. 
Sus\ii"ested issuance on permanent basis to all American vessels; also 
reduction of fee, 8. 9, C>2, 64, 67, 69, 70, 75, 76, 79, 90. 96, 104, 204, 
232. 239, 244. 252, 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 336, 348. 
Order in council exteniling, durin.t;- war, 6. 
I'rivileges .granted under. See Jjicenses, above. 
Ports of Canada, opening of. to Americjui fishing vessels, .s'rc American 

fishing vessels. 
Susi)ension of, 219. 
Text of (Exhibit CC) . 384. 
War order in council extending privileges, 6. 

See also American fishing vessels; Fift.v-fif ty : Licenses; Reciprocal .-irrange- 
ments. 
Motor fishing vessels : 

Applicability of lulled Stall's sleanibeat-inspeclion laws to, 27-31, 35. 
Licenses not granted under Alodns Vivendi. See Modus Vivendi. 

»S'rr Sleamboat-inspectlou l.-iws of United States; Licenses; Power 
vessels. 
Nati(mality of cn-ws. .American lishiug vessels. 17. 120. 123-124. 20(». 214. 210. 

234-235." 
Naviii'ation laws of riiited Slates, .apiillcation of, to lishing vessels. 11-27, 64, 
291, 296. 



INDEX. 393 

Nets : 

Cost of, in Cniuula niul Ignited Stntes, 7.S-80, 250. 325. 

Duty on, in United States and Canada, 76. 77. 79, SI. 250. 2!)6. 

Mending of, in Canadian ports, 221, 233, 275, 316-317. 

Manufactnrers of, 78. 

Tariff (U. S.) classification, revision of, 78, SO. 

Where bou,slit, 79, 81, 250, 296. 
New England fishing interests, notice of hearings sent to. 8. 62. 
Newfoundland : 

Conference lias no reference to, 112. 126. 214. 

Cre\YS from, for American fishing vessels, 120, 123-125, 127. 214. 221. 

Fish from, to United States free, 64. 

Im])0)-ts of fish from, to United States. 64. 149, 214. 

Law as to loltsters. 146. 

Shutting out American banking fleet. 219. 280. 

War conditions in. 212-213. 
New York State. Sec Lake Champlain Fisheries. 
Northern, noi-theastern. and northwestern frontiers, 47, 49. 
" Ocean white fish," 216. 

aSVc Whiting. 
Offal. Sec Waste: Chicken-feed industrv : Fish-meal industrv. 
Ofiicers : 

American vessels — 

(Mtizenship of. 123, 142. 241. 
Licensed, 28-31. 
Number of mates, 30. 
Wages. See Wages. 

('anadian vessels — 

Wages of. See Wages. 
Oils. See Fish grease and oils industr.v. 
Ojjen diplomacy. 60-61, 65, 186, 194, 293. 

Oj)erating expenses of American. Canadian, and F>ririsli fishinu' vessels, 217-218, 
317-318. 

See Cost. 
Orders in Council, Canadian: 

Extending modus vivendi. 51, 52, 92, 195, 274, 290. 

February IS, 1918. Lake Champlain fisheries, 5. 

February 28, 1918. closed season for shad, Bay of Fundy, 382. 

Marcli 8, 1918, granting American fishing vessels privileges in Canadian 
l)orts (hiring the war, 5-6. 

See also Reciprocal privileges, etc. 
Ordei's of I'nited States Government : 

February 20, 1918. granting privileges to Canadian and other vessels in 
American ports, 5. 

March 25, 1918, applying order of February 20 to Great Lakes, etc., 5. 
Ottawa, siiggestion tluit conference meet in, 51. 
Ownership of vessels : 

Individual and consolidated. 177, 200-201, 304-305. 

Number of owners, Gloucester fleet, 200, 202-203. 
Pacific and Atlantic fisheries, relative importance of, 48-49. 
Panama Canal act, whether applies to fishing vessels, 98-99, 106-107. 
Pay. See Wages. 
Pemn-ngton, Dr., 167, 169-170, 172. 
Pension for fishermen, 157. 
Pickled-fish industry, 257. 

Pike i)erch. Lake Champlain, 8, 53, 112-119, 199. 293. 
Pilotage, collection of, in Canadian ports, 214-215. 
Pollution of waters, 335. 

Ports of Canada, opening of to American fishing vessels, 5-6, 9, 62. 81-84. 96, 
102, 194, 201. 206, 211. 223-224. 229-2.30, 232, 238, 247, 252, 263, 300. 31(), 335- 
336. 
Poi-t charges of Canada, 9. 

Ports of United States, opening of to Canadian vessels. 5-6, 9. 12, 20, 62, 97. 
99-100, 102, 105. 110. 194, 206, 210, 228-230. 239, 252, 257. 263-268, 276. 283, 
301, 316. 
I'ortuguese on American fishing vessels, 17. 120-121, 200, 214, 219, 234-235. 
Portmi'iiese fisliing vess(-'ls, coming to I'^nited States, 202. 356. 



394 INDEX. 

Power fishing vessels : 

Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, L'T-.Hl. 

Auxiliary fishing- vessels of Gloucester, 223-224, 22S, 230. 

Canadian Government arantim;- special privileges to, 19, SI. SS-OO. 122-123. 

282-283, 313, 316, 354. 
Tendency toward, 96-97, 119. 200, 223-224, 315, 341, 346. 
Sec Gloucestei- fisheries vessels : ]Motor fishin.c; vessels ; Vessels. 
I'repared-fish industi-y, 241-242. 

Prices for fish, 48. 71, 73. 74, 123, 168, 208-209, 211, 222, 235, 242, 257. 259, 267- 
268, 302. 312, 315, 320, 339, 347. 351, 354. 
Sec also Cheajier fish. 
Pi'ince Rupert : 

Cold storage at. 111, 170. 171, 182. 
Free and oi)en niarket for fish, 109-119. 
Seattle outfitters in re privileges to American vessels. 70. 
Use of port by American fishing ves.sels, 6, 8, 70, 109-110, 182, 216. 
Privileges. Sec liecipi-ocal privileges: Modus vivendi. 

Production of fish, increase in. 64. 98. 104-106. 1.53, 183. 185-186. 188, 206. 208, 
212-213. 215, 223, 243, 248, 205. 267-268. 27S. 313. 316, 323. 340. 346. 351-.352. 
354. 356-357. 

Sec nlso. Demand foi- fish, etc.: Kducati<)nal jiropaganda. et--. : Exiiaiision 
of American market : Food supply. 
Protection of Amei'ican fishing industry. 78. 203. 205. 

Sec also. Modus vivendi : Kecii>rocal ])i'ivileges. 
Puget Sound, salmon fisheries of: 

Conservaticni of, 6-8. 52. 54-55. 62-63, 293. 
Drafting regulations for. 7-8. 55. 
Reciprocal privileges lietween the United States and Canada : 
xAs a war measure. 76, 77, 
By ( 'auada — 

Order in council. Feltrnary 18. 1918. Lake Cliamplain fisheries, 5. 
Order in cou.ncil. March 8. 1918. granting privileges in Canadian i)orts. 
during the w.-ir. to American fislnng vessels. 5-6. 
By United States- 
Bill in (Congress, February 25. 1918, to stop American lolister smacks 

fishing off Canadian coast, 6. 
(~)rder, Feliruary 20. 1918, granting privileges in American ports, during 
the war, to fishing vessels of Canada and other nations now acting 
with the United States, 5. 
Order. March 25, 1918, applying order of Fei)ruary 20, 1918. to Great 
Lakes and boundary waters, 5. 
To American fishing vessels in Canadian ports and to Canadian fi.shing ves- 
sels in .American' ports, 5-6. 67-71. 75-78. 81-84, 90-92. 97-98. 102-104, 
147. 158-159, 178-179. 183, 199, 202, 209-211, 213, 215. 220-221, 226-227. 
229-230, 232. 245-246, 252, 275-277, 284-285, 290-294, 302, 307, 312-313. 
317, 329. 336, 340-341. 346, 348-349, 351-354. 
See also, American fishing vessels ; Canadian fishing vessels : Fifty-fifty : 
Licenses ; Modus vivendi. 
Reciprocitv with Canada, proposed in 1911, 280. 
Refrigerating cars and ships, 157, 167. 169-170. 186-187. 220. 
Registered vessel, 18, 52, 276, 291. 

Registry. See American registry ; British registry : Canadian registry. 
Reinspection of vessels, 37. 

Relative importance of Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, 48-49. 
Repairs : 

American vessels, cost of, 303. 
Canadian vessels, cost of, 308. 

Privilege of, to American vessels in Canadian ports, 5-6, 313. 
See also, Cost; Treaty of 1818, 
Resolutions : 

In re protection of — 
Halibut, 374, 
Salmon, 7. 
Sturgeon, 39. 
Revised Statutes of United States. See Statutes of United States. 
Rope: 

See Supplies, 250, 317. 



IISTDEX. 395 

Sale of fish: 

In Aniericaii luarkeTs, iinvilei;v r<) ("auadian fislihm vessels, 9. 12, 20, 123; 
210, 340. 

In Canadian niurkets. pilvileae to American fisliinii- vessels, 9. 97. 206, 317, 
340. 

In inland cities of Canada, 104, 241, 346. 

In inland cities of United States, 1.32, lo.V157. 161-365, 167, 171-173. 185, 
206-207, 319-320, 322, 329, 

Increase of in Canada, 308. 

luci-ease of in United States, 162. 175. 
Salmon : 

On Pacific. 6-S. 52, 54-55, 62-63, 293, 

On Atlantic. 324-327. 337. 
Salmon pack, .size of. 44. 

Salt fish, into United States dutv free (see table), 128. 204. 227, 239. 
Salt fish industrv. ] 51-1 52. 160. 182-1 S3. 206. 257-260. 263. 268. 279. 301-302, 

346-347. 352. 
Salt, free, 12. 25. 
Sardines, 44. 45, 293. 340. 
Seal, case of, S.5-93, 273-274, 281-282, 
Seamen's act of United States, npr)lical)ilitv of. to fisinnu' vessels, 27. 30. 32, 

331, 332. 
Seattle, outfitters in. 70. 
Shad: 

In Canadian waters, 293, 323-329, 334, 337, 356, 364-3ti5, 383, 

In American waters, 55, 95, 324, 328, 337, 364. 
Sharks, 179. 

Sec also. Leather. 
Shipbnildin.s. See Construction of fishinji; vessels. 

Shipment of fish in bond thVough Canada, 9, 96, 109, 121-122. 211, 252, 314, .357. 
Ships, refrigeratintr, 186-187. 
Shore fisheries, 184-185. 198, 219-200. 
Skins. See Leather. 

Slavonians, on American fishing vessels, 17. 
Smoked-fish industry, 257, 264, 314, 329, 346. 
Smuggling, law to prevent, 21, 23, 38, 330. 
Sponge-protection law, 140. 

States, several not cooperating with Federal Government, 95. 
Statistics : 

See Consumption of fish: Cost: Exports: Fees for licenses: Imports; 
Tables : Vessels. 
Statutes of United States : 

Act of 1789, 12. 

Act of 1783, 11, 12. 

Act of 1898, 43, 57. 58. 
- Act of 1903, 43. 

Cold-storage law, 165. 

Navigation laws. See Navigation laws. 

Panama Canal act, 98-99, 106-107. 

Seamen's act. See Seamen's act. 

Section 1954 R. S., 22. 

Section 3109 R. S., 43, 46-47, 49-50, 57-58, 108, 276, 330. 

Section 4131 R. S., 38. 

Section 4311 R. S., 11, 20, 263. 

Section 4420 R. S., 26. 

Section 4426 R. S., 27-29. 

Section 4430 R. S., 362-363. 

Section 4431 R. S., 362. 

Section 4433 R. S., 362-363. 

Section 4463 R. S., 30. 

Section 4516 R. S., 32-33. 

Steamboat inspection laws. See Steamboat inspection laws. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of L'uited States : 

ApplicaliiJity of to fishing vessels, 27-38. 

Comparison with Canadian laws, 340. 

Traveling inspectors to enforce, 364. 



396 INDEX. 

steam fishing vessels : 

Applicabilitj' of Canadian steamboat-inspection laws to, 32, 35. 
Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, 27-32; 36. 
Number of, at Gloucester, 224, 315. 
See also American fishing vessels. Trawlers, Vessels. 
Steam trawler.s, 28-30, 32, 35, 81, 85-90, 98, 155, 309. 

See Trawlers. 
Strike of Gloucester fishermen (1917), 217, .353. 
Sturgeon, protection of, 8, 39-40, 53. 
Subsidy to Canadian cold-storage plants, 171. 

Supplies (outfits, coal, gi'uli. ice, l)ait, tul) trawls, nets, rope, etc.), 296, 331-332, 
345. 

American fishing vessels obtaining in Canadian poxts, 6, 79, 91, 96, 236- 

238, .300, 30.3-304, 317, 335. 
Canadian fishing vessels obtaining in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 

109. 251, 297, 299, 300, 304, 306. 
Cost of, for Canadian and American fishing vessels, 82, 236-239. 247. 250- 

251, 29.5-29(i, 306, 345, 353. 
Ketchikan, obtaining of. at, 109. 

Sec Ketchikan. 
Prince Rupert, obtaining of, at. 109-119. 

Prices of. in Canada and United States, 79. 236-23S. 2.50-251. 254. 278. 298. 
(Quality, 255. 297. 310. 314, 345, 355. 
Quantity, 251. 
Supply of fish, wliere largest from, 210, 211. 
Surplus supply of fisli, required, 185. 
Supply and dema.ud : 

DeveIoi>meiU and increase of, 104-106, 110, 127, 149-150, 152-156, 162, 164, 
172, 175-178, 183-185, 193, 199, 206-207, 211. 222, 229, 239-240, 242-243, 
252-25;i. 1258. 319, 323, .336-337, 346. 351. 
Relation between, 44-45. 71-72, 106, 127, 151-155, 162, 164, 168, 208-209, 
230. 243, 2.53. .315-316. 336. 

See <(ls() Consumption of fish; Demand for fish; Educational propa- 
ganda: Expansion of American ma rivets ; Production, increase in. 
T:d)les : 

Bounties i)aid to Canadian fishermen, 367. 
Cost of outfitting American fishing vessels, 236-238. 
Cost of outfitting Canadian fishing vessels, 297-298. 
Expenditures of American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 236, 237. 
Expenses of Gloucester fishing vessels, 236, 237. 
Imports of fish into United States, 381, 382. 
Nationality crevrs Gloucester fleet, 212. 
Nunilier vessels (iloucester fleet, 212. 
Outfitter supplies for Canadian vessels, 297. 

Prices foi- food, supplies, etc., for American and Canadian fishing ves- 
sels, 238. 
Vessels transfei-red to aliens, including Canadians, 373, 374. 
Taiming fish skins. See Leather. 
Tariff : 

A domestic problem, .52, 6-1, 83, 90. 103-104. 196, 201, 275. 291. 

(Canadian on fish, 9, 83, 90, 104. 206. 

Dutv on fish and fisliing gear, nets, etc, 79-81. 99. 

'see Duty. 
United States tariff act 1913. admitting cei'tain fish free. 52. 64. 99. 103. 
195-196. 204, 290-291. 
Territorial waters : 
Alaska, 21, 24. 

Canadian. 24. 52-53, 85-90, 196, 205, 281, 292. 
United States, 49, 205, 276, 281, 293, 330. 
Texas fish hatchery, closing of, 95. 

The seal case of 'Gloucester steam trawler at Halifax, 85-93, 273-274, 281-282 
Three-mile linut, 85-93, 196, 204-205, 233, 275, 277-278. 
Tinker. 93-94. 
Tonnage tax. United States, on fishing vessels, 26. 

See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fishing vessels. 
Transfer of Canadian fishing vessel to trading vessel. 15, 17-18. 64, 100, 103. 
105 125, 196, 204. 291, 315, 329, 347, 



TSDEX. 397 

Tran>:porrariou facilities. 157, 1G3-166, 169-lTG. 257. 269. 319. 

iSee also Refrigerating car.< and ships. 
Trausshipment of lisli. from Canada to United States, 69. 70. 96. 109 121-122 

211, 2.52, 314. 
Traveling inspectors. United States Steamboat Service. 37. 
Trawlers : 

American. 73. 230-231. 278-279. 
Boston fleet, 15-5-156. 
British 88. 148, 230. 243. 
Canadian. 73. 230-231. 278. 309. 
Regnlation of — 

In American-Canadian fisheries. 28. 85-93. 
In North Sea, 230-231. 

.See also American fishing vessels : British trawlers : Canadian fishing 
vessels ; Vessels ; Wages. 
Treatj- of 1818. rights of American fishing vessels imder (.shelter, repairs, wood, 
water). 8. 51. 53. 63. 64. SO. 90-92. 104. 195. 219. 226. 244. 274. 282-283 
290-291. 
Treaty of 18-54. 312. 

Treaty of Washington. 1871. -52. 147. 148. 215. 244-245. 291. 
Treaty of 1888. not ratified by Congress: 

Proposed rights under. -51-52. a3-64. 195. 277-278, 290-291. 
ilodns Vivendi, established by Congi-e.s.s pending ratification of. 51-.52 92 
195. 274. 290. 
Treaty of 1909. 43. 46. 49-50. 
Tuna-fish industry. 17.3-174. 184. 
Twelve-mile limit, fishing off Canadian coast, 85-93. 205. 273. 282. 

See also The Seal. 
United States and Canada in the war. 112. 192-195. 203. 212-213. 245. 261-263 
279. 

.S'ee also Great Britain in the war. 
Cnited States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels. 
United States Navy, sources fi'om which recruited. 16. 17. 235. 285. 
Vermont. See Lake Chtsmplaiu fisheries. 
Vessels : 

Aliens and citizens on American fi.<hins vessels. 17. 12i>-121. 12:-)-124. 200. 

214, 219. 234-235. 
American registry. See American registry. 

.American fishing vessels, privileges in Canadian ports. .Sec American fish- 
ing vessels : Reciprocal privileges. 
Bait for. ..Sec Supplies. 
Bill of health. 21. 26. 
Boilers of. 28. 34-36. 357-36:3. 
British trawlers. .See Briti.><li trawlers. 

Canadian fishing vessels, privileges in American ports. .See Canadian fish- 
ing vessels : Reciprocal privileges, etc. 
Canadian port charges for American fishing vessels, 9. 
Clearance and entry, American fishing vessels in Canadian ports: and 
Canadian fishing vessels in Anierican ports. .See Clearance and entry ; 
Reciprocal privileges. 
Construction of — 

Cost of American fishiua vessels. 105. 256. 267. 295. 307-308. 318. 342-.343. 
Cost of Canadian fishius: vessels. 249, 256. 295, 308. 311. 318. .342-.343. 
Place of, 28, 248-249, 303, 309, 342. 
Cost of construction, labor, materials, and supplies. See Cost, 
Crews of. .See Crews. 

Earnings of. compared with Canadian, 229, 246. 
Equipment, inspection of, 31, 32, 360. 

See also Equipment. 
Fishermen. .See Crews ; Gloucester fisheries ; Wages. 
Fishing gear — 

Cost of. .See Supplies. 
Duty on. .See Duty. 
Food, cost of for American and Canadian vessels. See Cost. 
Foreign vessels taking out American or Canadian registry. .See American 

registi-y : British registry : Canadian registi'v- 
French fishinar vessels, in fisheries, 202. 



398 INDEX. 

Vessels — Con t in uecl. 

" Grand Bankers," 266. 

Gloucester tislilnj;- tleet. See Gloucester fisheries. 

Great Britain's fishing tleet. See Great Britain's tishing lieet. 

Inspection and ivinspection of. Sec Inspection of vessels. 

Licensed captains, mates, and engineers. 28-29. 

Licenses, Canadian, to American fishing vessels. See Licenses. 

Lobster well smacks. See Lobster fishing. 

Manifests, 42, 4;i. 

Mastei-s and oHicers of American vessels. Sec Otlicers, Aim-i'iran vessels. 

Modus Vivendi of Canada. American fishing vessels operating under. See 

Modus Vivendi, 
^lotor fisliing vessels. Sec iNIotor fishing vessels: l*o\ver. 
Navigation laws of Ignited States, jipplicability of to fishing vessels, 11-27, 

2<), 19G. 
Nets. See Nets. 
Number ()f — 

Boston-Gloucester fieets. Iim-I.'U). 177, 1!>!) 20(», •J(»2-20H, 211-212, 22;-J- 

224. 22S, 284, 238. 247. 28(1. 
Calling at Canadian jjorts, 1915-16; also nunibei of calls, 22.5. 
TnsuHicient to suppl.v increased (lenian<l for fish, 106, ir)6, 207, 208, 

220, 229. 
Owners. (Jloucester hoals. 200, 202, 20.".. 
Hailing from Luneiilmrg, .*{01-r!02, .'>04. 
Sold at Gloucester :ind lo wliat countries, 160, 274. 277. 
Operating expenses ol'. .s'rr ( 'osl ; op(H-atiiig expenses: <Jloucesler fisheries. 
( )fiicers of AmeiMcaii vessels. Sec ( )tlicer. vie. 
( )\\iiei-sliip of — 

Consolidation of owners, 177, 200-201. 
Number of owners at (Jloucester. 200, 202 20;>. 
Ports of Canada, ojjentng of, to .Americnn vessels. Sec American fishing 

vessels; Kecii)roc:il i)hivileges. 
I'orts of I'nited States, oi>eiung of. lo Canadian vessels. See Canadian 

fishing vessels; U(H-i|)roc;ii jirivileges. 
rortuguese fishing vessels coming io I'niled Sl:it<'s. 202. .'iKJ. 
l'o\\er. fishing \essels. Sec I'ower. 

Prince Rupert, American vessels imttiiig in nl. Sec Prince Uupert. 
Privileges to American :ind Canadian, Sec Uecipi-ocal jirivilegos. 
Qualit.v of. 8."i, 86. 
Repairs. 1o Cniied Slates \(>ssels in Canadian i)orls. Xcc Cost. Re])aii-s; 

Treat.v .if ISIS. 
Rights of American fishing vessels under livat.v of ISIS. See Amei'ican fish- 
ing vessels. 
Seamen's act. Ignited States, aiiitlicability of. to tisliing vessels. Sec Sea- 

nien's act. 
Sheltei' for rnite<l States vessels in Can.adian jiorls. Sec Shelter; Ameri- 

<-an fishing vessels; Treat.v of 181S. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada. a]ii>lical)ilitv of. 81-82, 86, :^40, 8.")7- 

364. 
Steamboat-inspection laws of United States, applicability of, 27-8S, .840. 
Steam fishing vessels. See Steam fislnng vessels. 
Supplies f(U- (see Supplies) — 

At Ketchikan. See Ketchikan. 
At Prince Bupert. Sec Prince Rui)ert. 

(^ost of, for Canada and United States fishing ve.ssels. See Cost. 
Obtained liy American fishing Itoats in Canadian ports. Sec Supi)lies. 
Obtained liy Canadian fisliing vessels in United States ports. See Sup- 
plies. 
Tlie Seal, incident at Halifax. 8.1-93. 271-274, 281-282. 
Tonnage tax on United States fishing vessels. 26. 
Transfer of — 

American ves.sels to Canadian registry, 26-27, 8-"), 38, 49. 

British and other foreign vessels to American registrv. 8"). ;5S. 98-99. 

106. 
Canadian vessels to American registry. 3.5, 38, 98-99. 
From character of fishing vessel to trader. 1;5. 17. IS. ci, lOO, 108, 1(».5, 
125, 196. 204, 291, 815, 329, .847. 



INDEX. 399 

Vessels — Contiuued. 

Treaty of 1818, rights of United States vessels under. See Treutv (jf 1818 
Treaty of 1888 (not ratified), proposed rights under. See Treaty of 1888 
Lnited States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels 
Wages of captains and crews of American and Canadian. ' See Wa^es 
u ater for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Water : Treaty of 
181S. ' 

^ Wood for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Wood ; Treaty of 
181o. 
AVages : 

Captain.s. mates, crews, fishermen. 120. 124, 326. 213 231 -^SG-'HT -'BT '^Qfi 

3U(j, 314. 343-344. 365. '" -'•-"'•-•^O' 

American fishing vessels including steam trawlei-s, 62, 71-77 8"'^ I'^O- 

321. 127. 231, 236-237. 267, 299. 309-310. 344. ' " 

r'anadian fishing vessels, including steam trawlers. 62 73-77 S"* 1*>7 
220. 237. 295-296. 301, 305-306. 309-310, 314, 343-344, 353. ' ' ' ' 
Comparison of, officers and crews American and Canadian fishing vessels 
73-77, 12&-127, 213, 229, 237. 254, 299. 302, 304, 309-310, 314 343-345 ' 
('arpenters. laliorers. etc., in shipbuilding. 72. 
Great Britain in, 180-181. 310. 
Rate, coiiiputation of, 74, 77. 305, 309. 

Sharing system on fishing vessels. 213, 217-218. 296, 299. 305, 30&-310 343 

365. ' 

War. S.ee Cana<la and United States in; Great Britain in; ]\Iodus vivendi ■ 

Orders in Council : ( )rders of United States Government 
War of 1812, 63. 
Waste. See Fish waste. 
Water for American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 88, 317 

See also Modus vivendi ; Treaty of 1818. 
Well smacks. See Lobster fishing. ' 
Whales : 

Pishing for, 62. 242. 
Industry, 6. 62. 

Meat as a food, 154, 242, 245. 
Protection of, 6, 8. 
See also Leather. 
Whitefish. See Lake Champlain. 

Whiting fish industry. 165, 167, 171-172, 181. 184, 207, 216, 258-260. 
Wood, for American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 318. 
See also Modus vivendi ; Treaty of 1818. 



